Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 195 / Tuesday, October 8, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 81361 

Paperwork Reduction Act 

Pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction 

Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3507), the 

collections of information related to this 

rule have been approved by the Office 

of Management and Budget under 

control number 1505–0164. An agency 

may not conduct or sponsor, and a 

person is not required to respond to, a 

collection of information unless the 

collection of information displays a 

valid control number. 

List of Subjects in 31 CFR Part 501 

Administrative practice and 

procedure, Banks, banking, Blocking of 

assets, Foreign trade, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements. 

For the reasons set forth in the 

preamble, the interim rule amending 31 

CFR part 501, which was published May 

10, 2024 (89 FR 40372), is adopted as 

final with the following change: 

PART 501—REPORTING, 

PROCEDURES AND PENALTIES 

REGULATIONS 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 501 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 8 U.S.C. 1189; 18 U.S.C. 2332d, 

2339B; 19 U.S.C. 3901–3913; 21 U.S.C. 1901– 

1908; 22 U.S.C. 287c, 2370(a), 6009, 6032, 

7205, 8501–8551; 31 U.S.C. 321(b); 50 U.S.C. 

1701–1706, 4301–4341; Pub. L. 101–410, 104 

Stat. 890, as amended (28 U.S.C. 2461 note). 

Subpart C—Reports 

■ 2. Amend § 501.603 by revising and 

republishing paragraph (b)(3)(i) to read 

as follows: 

§ 501.603 Reports of blocked, unblocked, 

or transferred blocked property. 

* * * * * 

(b) * * * 

(3) * * * 

(i) When reports are due. Except as 

provided in paragraphs (b)(3)(i)(A) 

through (D) of this section, reports shall 

be submitted to OFAC within 10 

business days from the date blocked 

property is unblocked or transferred. 

For example, such reports must be filed 

when blocked property is unblocked or 

transferred pursuant to a valid order 

from a U.S. Government agency or U.S. 

court, including pursuant to a valid 

judicial order issued pursuant to section 

201(a) of the Terrorism Risk Insurance 

Act (Pub. L. 107–297, 116 Stat. 2322, 28 

U.S.C. 1610 note) or a valid order of 

forfeiture by any U.S. Government 

agency or U.S. court. Reports do not 

need to be filed under this section for: 

(A) Authorized debits to blocked 

accounts for normal service charges; 

(B) Authorized transfers of funds or 

credit by a financial institution between 

blocked accounts in its branches or 

offices; 

(C) Unblocking or transfer of blocked 

property that is explicitly authorized by 

a specific or general license, unless the 

specific or general license includes a 

condition requiring the submission of a 

separate unblocking report; or 

(D) Unblocking of blocked property 

pursuant to OFAC’s removal of a person 

from OFAC’s List of Specially 

Designated Nationals and Blocked 

Persons (SDN List). 

* * * * * 

Lisa M. Palluconi, 

Acting Director, Office of Foreign Assets 

Control. 

[FR Doc. 2024–23217 Filed 10–7–24; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4810–AL–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 

SECURITY 

Coast Guard 

33 CFR Part 100 

[Docket No. USCG–2024–0900] 

Safety Zone; Battle of the Basin Boat 

Races Morgan City, LA 

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS. 

ACTION: Notification of enforcement of 

regulation. 

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard will enforce 

the regulations for the Battle of the 

Basin Boat Races between mile marker 

(MM) 4 and MM 5 on the Morgan City, 

Port Allen Route, Louisiana (LA). This 

action is necessary to provide for the 

safety of life on these navigable waters 

near Morgan City, LA during high speed 

boat races on October 26, 2024 and 

October 27, 2024. During the 

enforcement periods, the operator of any 

vessel in the regulated area must 

comply with directions from the local 

Patrol Commander. 

DATES: The regulations in 33 CFR 

100.801 will be enforced from 10 a.m. 

to 6 p.m. on October 26, 2024 and 

October 27, 2024. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If 

you have questions about this notice of 

enforcement, call or email Lieutenant 

Jenelle Piche ́, Marine Safety Unit (MSU) 

Morgan City, U.S. Coast Guard; 

telephone 985–855–0724, email 

Jenelle.L.Piche@uscg.mil. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Coast 

Guard will enforce the regulations set 

forth in 33 CFR 100.801 for the Battle 

of the Basin Boat Races. The regulations 

will be enforced from 10 a.m. to 6 p.m. 

on October 26, 2024 and October 27, 

2024. This action is being taken to 

provide for the safety of life on 

navigable waterways during this event, 

which will be located between MM 4 

and MM 5 on the Morgan City, Port 

Allen Route, LA. The Patrol Commander 

may be contacted on Channel 16 VHF– 

FM by the call sign ‘‘PATCOM.’’ During 

the enforcement periods, if you are the 

operator of a vessel in the regulated area 

you must comply with the regulations 

set forth in 33 CFR 100.801. 

In addition to this notification of 

enforcement in the Federal Register, the 

Coast Guard plans to provide 

notification of this enforcement period 

via a Safety Marine Information 

Broadcast and Broadcast Notice to 

Mariners. 

Dated: September 25, 2024. 

J.S. Franz, 

Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the 

Port Houma. 

[FR Doc. 2024–23179 Filed 10–7–24; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 9110–04–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R10–OAR–2023–0600, FRL–11593– 

02–R10] 

Air Plan Approval; OR; Regional Haze 

Plan for the Second Implementation 

Period 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is approving 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 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. 

DATES: This final rule is effective 

November 7, 2024. 

ADDRESSES: The EPA has established a 

docket for this action under Docket ID 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES1
81362 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 195 / Tuesday, October 8, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

1This extension request letter may be found in 

the docket for this action. 

No. EPA–R10–OAR–2023–0600. All 

documents in the docket are listed on 

the https://www.regulations.gov 

website. Although listed in the index, 

some information is not publicly 

available, e.g., Confidential Business 

Information or other information the 

disclosure of which is restricted by 

statute. Certain other material, such as 

copyrighted material, is not placed on 

the internet and will be publicly 

available only in hard copy form. 

Publicly available docket materials are 

available at https://

www.regulations.gov, or please contact 

the person listed in the FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT section for 

additional availability information. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jeff 

Hunt, EPA Region 10, 1200 Sixth 

Avenue, Suite 155, Seattle, WA 98101, 

at (206) 553–0256 or hunt.jeff@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Throughout this document, wherever 

‘‘we’’ or ‘‘our’’ is used, it means the 

EPA. 

Table of Contents 

I. Background 

II. EPA Responses to Comments Received 

A. National Park Service Comments 

1. Federal Land Manager Consultation 

2. Use of the Four Statutory Factors in 

Determining Reasonable Progress 

3. Use of Permitted Emissions Limits To 

Align Allowable Emissions With Actual 

Emissions 

4. Use of a Stipulated Agreement and Final 

Order (SAFO) Versus a Unilateral Order 

5. Compliance Deadlines 

6. Standards for Emissions Unit 

Replacement 

7. Wauna Facility—Biomass Fired 

Fluidized Bed Boiler 

8. Georgia-Pacific—Toledo LLC—Final 

Control Determination 

9. Georgia-Pacific—Toledo LLC—Emission 

Limit 

10. Georgia-Pacific—Toledo LLC— 

Emissions Unit Replacement 

11. Cascade Pacific Pulp, LLC—Halsey 

Pulp Mill Power Boilers—SCR 

12. Cascade Pacific Pulp, LLC—Halsey 

Pulp Mill Power Boilers—LNB 

13. Cascade Pacific Pulp, LLC—Halsey 

Pulp Mill Power Boilers—Compliance 

Deadline and Emission Limit 

14. International Paper—Springfield— 

Emission Limit 

15. Owens-Brockway Glass Container Inc. 

B. Environmental Organizations’ 

Comments 

1. Stationary Source Contribution 

2. Oregon’s Regional Haze Rule Is 

Inconsistent With the CAA 

3. Oregon’s Use of PSEL Reductions as a 

Source Selection Method 

4. Oregon’s ‘‘Alternative Compliance’’ 

Pathways 

5. Documentation of Oregon’s Four-Factor 

Analysis Process 

6. Owens-Brockway Glass Container Inc. 

7. Reasonable Progress Goals 

8. Robust Demonstration Requirements 

9. Environmental Justice 

III. Final Action 

IV. Incorporation by Reference 

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. Background 

On February 23, 2024, the EPA 

proposed to approve the regional haze 

state implementation plan (SIP) revision 

submitted by Oregon on April 29, 2022, 

as supplemented on November 22, 2023, 

as satisfying applicable requirements 

under the Clean Air Act (CAA) and the 

EPA’s Regional Haze Rule (RHR) for the 

program’s second implementation 

period (89 FR 13622). 

The public comment period for our 

proposed action was originally 

scheduled to close on March 25, 2024. 

However, on February 28, 2024, we 

received a request to extend the public 

comment period an additional 30 days.1

On March 14, 2024, we published a 

document in the Federal Register 

extending the public comment period 

end date from March 25, 2024, to April 

24, 2024 (89 FR 18866). 

We received four comments. We 

determined that two comments were not 

germane to our action, for the following 

reasons. One commenter expressed 

opposition to the cultivation of 

cannabis, asserting general air pollution 

concerns. The commenter did not 

provide any tangible connection to the 

regional haze requirements or the 

Oregon submission. The EPA 

acknowledges the commenter’s 

concerns; however, the comment is 

outside the scope of this action and does 

not indicate that the EPA’s approval of 

the SIP submission is inconsistent with 

the CAA. Oversight of cannabis farms is 

unrelated to this regional haze action. 

A second commenter cited some 

details from the Oregon regional haze 

plan, asserting a connection to 

transmission of the coronavirus. 

However, the commenter provided no 

logical basis for this assertion. The EPA 

acknowledges the commenter’s 

concerns; however, the comment is 

outside the scope of this action and does 

not indicate that the EPA’s approval of 

the SIP submission is inconsistent with 

the CAA. Potential connections between 

air pollution and respiratory viruses on 

public health is unrelated to this 

regional haze action. 

We also received two germane 

comments. One was submitted by the 

National Park Service (NPS). The 

second was submitted by Earthjustice 

on behalf of a coalition of 

environmental organizations consisting 

of Cully Air Action Team, National 

Parks Conservation Association, 

Neighbors for Clean Air, Northwest 

Environmental Defense Center, Oregon 

Environmental Council, Sierra Club, 

and Verde (Environmental 

Organizations). The full text of the 

comments may be found in the docket 

for this action. We have summarized the 

comments and provided our responses 

in section II. of this preamble. 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. 

II. EPA Responses to Comments 

Received 

A. National Park Service Comments 

1. Federal Land Manager Consultation 

Comment: ‘‘[W]e would like to make 

the EPA aware that the Oregon SIP 

process did not meet the requirements 

for Federal Land Manager (FLM) 

consultation . . . The NPS participated 

in early, informal engagement with the 

Oregon Department of Environmental 

Quality (ODEQ) regarding SIP 

development beginning in January of 

2020. This productive collaboration 

included a meeting, subsequent written 

documentation, and staff-to-staff 

technical feedback on individual facility 

four-factor analyses as documented in 

the Oregon SIP. The NPS appreciates 

the extensive efforts that Oregon 

invested in early communication. 

However, many of the draft conclusions 

and determinations presented to the 

NPS during early engagement were not 

incorporated into the draft SIP released 

for public review in late August 2021. 

In fact, the public comment draft 

included substantial changes to the 

facility-specific control determinations 

in comparison with what the NPS had 

reviewed previously.’’ 

Response: The EPA disagrees with the 

commenter’s assertion that Oregon did 

not meet the requirements for Federal 

Land Manager (FLM) consultation in 40 

CFR 51.308(i). As described below, 

ODEQ met all of the FLM consultation 

statutory and regulatory requirements. 

Chapter 6.3 Consultations with 

Federal Land Managers of the April 29, 

2022, SIP revision contained 

documentation of the extensive 

outreach with the NPS. This included 

providing a May 5, 2021, draft of the 

regional haze plan explicitly for the 

purpose of FLM consultation (May 2021 

FLM draft). A key element of 40 CFR 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 195 / Tuesday, October 8, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 81363 

2See 82 FR 3078 (January 10, 2017) at page 3116. 

3See Oregon’s April 29, 2022, submission, pages 

136–140 (comment numbers 6–9). 

4See 89 FR 13622 (February 23, 2024) at page 

13637. 

5Complete copies of the ‘‘Preliminary 

Determination of Cost Effective Controls for 

Regional Haze’’ letters are included in the docket 

for this action. 

6Complete copies of the four-factor analyses are 

included in the docket for this action. 

7Complete copies of appendices 1–6 were 

included in the November 2023 supplement to the 

regional haze plan and are also included in the 

docket for this action (document numbers 246–251). 

51.308(i)(2) is that consultation occur 

early enough in a state’s policy analyses 

of its long-term strategy so that 

information and recommendations 

provided by the FLMs can meaningfully 

inform a state’s decisions on the longterm strategy. Chapters 6.3.3 Federal 

Land Manager Review of Draft State 

Implementation Plan and 6.3.4 Federal 

Land Manager Comments and DEQ 

Responses contained Oregon’s 

responses to all comments received as 

part of the May 2021 FLM draft review 

process and prior consultation outreach. 

The NPS’s characterization of this effort 

as ‘‘informal consultation’’ is not 

consistent with the EPA’s regulations. 

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

contain no bifurcation of ‘‘informal’’ 

versus ‘‘formal’’ consultation. 

Consistent with the preamble of the 

EPA’s 2017 Regional Haze Rule, the 

Oregon Department of Environmental 

Quality (ODEQ) made a good faith effort 

to involve the NPS early in development 

of the long-term strategy. The RHR 

preamble specifically states that 

consultation should be used to inform 

‘‘decisions that are about to be made by 

the state on its long-term strategy . . .’’ 

(emphasis added).2 ODEQ used the 

comments and feedback from the May 

2021 FLM consultation draft to inform 

the final control determinations 

contained in the draft provided for 

public notice and comment period 

starting on August 27, 2021 (August 

2021 public comment draft). The 

interpretation that all control 

determinations must be finalized before 

initiating FLM consultation is not 

supported by the text of 40 CFR 

51.308(i), nor is it in keeping with the 

intent of 40 CFR 51.308(i) to foster early 

engagement. 

In addition to the May 2021 FLM 

consultation draft process, ODEQ 

provided opportunity for review and 

comment on the August 2021 public 

draft. In response to public interest, 

ODEQ extended the public comment 

period for an additional 30 days, going 

from August 27, 2021, to November 1, 

2021, so that all parties had adequate 

time to review the technical 

determinations. The NPS used this 

opportunity to provide additional 

comments which are included in 

Chapter 6.6 Public Comments and 

Responses of the April 29, 2022, SIP 

revision, along with ODEQ’s responses 

to the comments.3

Also, in response to NPS and 

Environmental Organizations’ concerns, 

ODEQ supplemented the regional haze 

SIP on November 22, 2023, with 

appendices 1 through 6 (2023 

supplement). These appendices 

contained additional correspondence 

used by ODEQ in making control 

determinations under the statutory four 

factors for Boise Cascade Wood 

Products, LLC—Elgin Complex, Boise 

Cascade Wood Products, LLC— 

Medford, Georgia Pacific—Wauna Mill, 

Georgia Pacific—Toledo LLC, Cascade 

Pacific Pulp, LLC—Halsey Pulp Mill, 

and International Paper Company— 

Springfield Mill. As acknowledged by 

the NPS, ODEQ conducted FLM 

consultation on the 2023 supplement 

and included NPS comments in Section 

6: Response to Federal Land Manager 

Review Comments. 

For the reasons stated above, it is our 

determination that ODEQ adequately 

conducted FLM consultation and has 

thus fulfilled the requirements of 40 

CFR 51.308(i). 

2. Use of the Four Statutory Factors in 

Determining Reasonable Progress 

Comment: ‘‘The NPS recommends 

that states, including Oregon, base 

reasonable progress control 

determinations on the four statutory 

factors identified in § 7491(g)(1) of the 

Clean Air Act (CAA). The NPS suggests 

that it may not be sufficient to consider 

the factors and then select a less 

protective control measure (or permit 

reduction) that is unrelated to the fourfactor analysis. We recommend that 

determinations not clearly based on the 

four factors should demonstrate how the 

alternative measure is reasonable and/or 

equivalent to the outcome of the fourfactor analysis.’’ 

Response: The EPA agrees with the 

NPS that reasonable progress control 

determinations must be grounded in the 

state’s consideration of the four 

statutory factors identified in CAA 

section 169A and 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2). In 

section IV.E.b of our proposed 

rulemaking, The EPA’s Evaluation of the 

Oregon Long-Term Strategy, we 

explained how the Oregon process was 

grounded in the four-factor analysis 

(FFA) process.4 However, the NPS’s 

characterization that ODEQ’s January 

2021 ‘‘Preliminary Determination of 

Cost Effective Controls for Regional 

Haze’’ letters constituted final fourfactor determinations, and all 

subsequent correspondence and action 

was outside the four-factor framework is 

an inaccurate characterization of the 

Oregon process.5 The EPA will reiterate 

key aspects from our proposed 

rulemaking as well as details from 

Chapter 3.4 Four Factor Analysis of 

Oregon’s April 29, 2022, regional haze 

plan. 

Oregon Administrative Rules (OAR) 

Division 223 Regional Haze Rules 

dictated the regulatory processes for 

determining the controls necessary for 

reasonable progress. OAR 340–223– 

0110(1) required all affected facilities to 

submit four-factor analyses. The 

required contents of the four-factor 

analyses were specified in OAR 340– 

223–0120, which mirrored the four 

statutory factors of CAA section 

169A(g)(1). Of the 17 facilities that 

submitted four-factor analyses in 

accordance with this rule, nearly all 

affected facilities submitted detailed 

demonstrations developed by 

independent consulting firms and/or 

certified professional engineers 

asserting that no feasible or costeffective controls were available in 

applying the four-factors.6 Only 2 

facilities, Owens-Brockway Glass 

Container Inc. and Gilchrist Forest 

Products found cost effective controls 

under the four factors. 

Rather than simply relying on these 

submissions to satisfy 40 CFR 

51.308(f)(2), Oregon engaged with the 

affected facilities to identify feasible 

control options. Specifically, ODEQ 

issued ‘‘Preliminary Determination of 

Cost Effective Controls for Regional 

Haze’’ letters proposing more stringent 

controls unless facilities could further 

demonstrate that the measures were 

truly not cost effective or technically 

feasible. This initiated the process 

between January 2021 and August 2021 

when ODEQ assessed and determined 

final control determinations under the 

four factors, primarily based on the 

technical feasibility and cost 

correspondence documented in 

appendices 1–6.7

Thus, these preliminary letters did 

not replace the four factor analyses 

submitted by the affected facilities. Nor 

were the preliminary letters final 

determinations on what controls are 

feasible and necessary for reasonable 

progress under OAR 340–223–120(4) or 

40 CFR 51.308(f)(2). Rather, these 

preliminary determinations letters were 

a result of ODEQ’s initial adjustment of 

the four-factor analyses submitted by 

the affected facilities based on 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES1
81364 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 195 / Tuesday, October 8, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

8See OAR 340–223–0120(2) and (3). 

9See Oregon Environmental Quality Commission 

Meeting, February 3–4, 2022, 1001_1.1_StaffReport_

wAttachments Comment #17 at Item C 000035. 

10This table was created using the EPA’s 2019 

Guidance recommendation to use projected actuals 

or recent actuals in cost-effectiveness calculations. 

11The four-factor analysis raised technical 

feasibility and cost barriers in the determination 

that, ‘‘Based on the Four Factor analysis presented 

above, no additional controls were determined to be 

cost effective for the biomass boilers at the Elgin 

Mill.’’ See 106_SAFOBCWoodProducts31– 

0006Elgin.pdf, at page 2–25. Correspondence 

related to these issues is included in 246_3.3.2_

Appendix1_Boise.Cascade.Elgin_

Correspondence.pdf, included in the docket for this 

action. 

12ODEQ did not pursue this control option, 

presumably because associated potential PM10

emissions were low (69 tons per year) relative to 

potential NOX emissions (367 ton per year) and the 

significant difference between allowable PSEL 

emissions (Q/d = 11.92) and actual emissions (Q/ 

d = 3.57). ODEQ instead proposed NOX controls in 

the January 2021 preliminary determination letter. 

See 120_haze-EVRAZ.pdf, included in the docket 

for this action. 

13The four-factor analysis argued, ‘‘A formal 

engineering analysis would be required to 

ultimately determine if SNCR would be effective on 

the boilers. This type of analysis would include 

obtaining temperature and flow data, developing a 

model of each boiler using computational fluid 

dynamics, determining residence time and degree 

of mixing, determining placement of injectors, and 

testing.’’ See 132_haze-GeorgiaPacific-ToledoFFA.pdf, at page 2–19. 

14 In a letter dated September 11, 2020, Gilchrist 

agreed that installation of an Electrostatic 

Precipitator on boilers B–1 and B–2 would be costeffective, and provided a letter from a boiler vendor 

indicating that retrofitting those boilers with 

Selective Non-Catalytic Reduction was not 

technically feasible. See April 22, 2022 regional 

haze SIP at page 77. 

15Catalytic ceramic filter imposed on furnace D 

by separate enforcement action. See 701_

OwensBrockway2020–208MAO.pdf included in the 

docket for this action. 

additional information and to aid in a 

consistent review across all four-factor 

analyses.8 Consistent with 40 CFR 

51.308(f)(2) and OAR 340–223–120(4), 

ODEQ determined the controls 

necessary for reasonable progress after 

issuing the preliminary determinations 

and collecting and analyzing additional 

information from the facilities regarding 

the four statutory factors. As ODEQ 

explained in its response to comments 

on the initial SIP submission, in some 

cases ODEQ agreed with facilities that 

controls it preliminarily proposed were 

not technically feasible or cost 

effective.9 Ultimately, Oregon’s 

submission demonstrates that it 

determined the controls necessary for 

reasonable progress based on its 

consideration of the four statutory 

factors and thus met the requirements of 

40 CFR 51.308(f)(2). 

Table 1 of this preamble provides a 

comparison of the controls evaluated in 

the four factor analyses submitted by the 

sources and the controls Oregon 

ultimately included in its long-term 

strategy. The exact facility-by-facility 

determinations are described in more 

detail in the Proposal and in subsequent 

responses to facility-specific comments 

in section II of this preamble. 

TABLE 1—COMPARISON OF FOUR-FACTOR ANALYSIS CONTROLS AND FINAL CONTROLS

[Please see the footnotes for technical feasibility issues identified in the four-factor analyses] 

Facility 

Controls below $10K/per ton reduction threshold in 

four-factor analyses submitted pursuant to OAR 

340–223–0110(1) using recent actual or projected 

actual emissions (if provided) 10

Final controls imposed by ODEQ 

Biomass One, L.P ................................ None ........................................................................ Installation of continuous emissions monitoring 

system (CEMS) and NOX optimization plan on 

North and South boilers. If the permittee is able 

to finalize a new power purchase agreement, 

the permitted must evaluate installation of selective catalytic reduction (SCR). 

Boise Cascade Wood Products, LLC— 

Elgin Complex.

Selective non-catalytic reduction (SNCR) ($9,523) 

and SCR ($9,538).11

Installation of CEMS and NOX combustion improvement project. 

Cascade Pacific Pulp, LLC—Halsey 

Pulp Mill.

None ........................................................................ Fuel restrictions and power boiler emissions unit 

replacement. 

EVRAZ Inc. NA .................................... Baghouse for slab cutting operations ($7,301).12 Low NOX burners (LNB) on reheat furnace. 

Gas Transmission Northwest LLC— 

Compressor Station 13.

None ........................................................................ SCR or emissions unit replacement on turbines 

13C and 13D. 

Georgia-Pacific—Toledo LLC .............. Low NOX burners with flue gas recirculation (LNB/ 

FGR) on boiler 1 ($7,083). SNCR on boilers 1 

($7,706) and 4 ($7,630).13

LNB/FGR and CEMS on boilers 1, 3, and 4, or 

unit replacement on one or more boilers. 

Georgia Pacific—Wauna Mill ............... (LNB/FGR) on power boiler ($9,223) ...................... LNB/FGR and CEMS on power boiler, LNB for 

paper machine 5, and emissions limits for paper 

machines 6 and 7. 

Gilchrist Forest Products ...................... None 14 .................................................................... Installation of electrostatic precipitator on units 

B–1 and B–2. 

International Paper—Springfield .......... None ........................................................................ Fuel restrictions, installation of CEMS on power 

boiler, and emissions limits. 

Northwest Pipeline LLC—Oregon City 

Compressor Station.

Low Emission Combustion Retrofit ($8,809) .......... Emissions unit replacement and emissions limit. 

Owens-Brockway Glass Container Inc Catalytic ceramic filters for furnaces A ($5,256) & 

D ($5,035).

Furnace A shut down and PSEL limit imposed.15

Pacific Wood Laminates, Inc ............... None ........................................................................ ODEQ determined no controls <$10K. 

Roseburg Forest Products—Dillard ..... SNCR on boilers 1 ($4,363), 2 ($4,170), and 6 

($3,635).

Installation of CEMS and imposition of emissions 

limits. Permittee must install SNCR by June 30, 

2025, if emissions limits are not met. 

Willamette Falls Paper Company ........ None ........................................................................ Fuel restrictions and Plantsite Emissions Limit 

(PSEL) reduction. 

Woodgrain Millwork LLC— 

Particleboard.

None ........................................................................ ODEQ determined no controls <$10K. 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 195 / Tuesday, October 8, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 81365 

16See 89 FR 13622 (February 23, 2024) at page 

13639. 

17See 142_haze-KingsfordManufCo.pdf in the 

docket for this action. 

18See 149_haze-Owens-Brockway-FFA.pdf in the 

docket for this action. 

19See 150_haze-Owens-Brockway.pdf in the 

docket for this action. 

20See https://www.oregon.gov/deq/programs/

pages/owensbrockway.aspx. 

21See 701_OwensBrockway2020–208MAO.pdf in 

the docket for this action. 

22See 151_SAFOOwensBrockway0840001.pdf in 

the docket for this action. 

23See 89 FR 13622 (February 23, 2024) at page 

13641. 

3. Use of Permitted Emissions Limits To 

Align Allowable Emissions With Actual 

Emissions 

Comment: ‘‘We note that the Oregon 

SIP process allowed some facilities to 

accept permitted emission reductions to 

lower their surrogate visibility impact 

(emissions over distance or Q/d) to just 

below the threshold for selection rather 

than requiring implementation of costeffective emission controls that were 

identified through a four-factor analysis 

. . . The NPS agrees that in cases where 

recent actual emissions would not have 

triggered source selection, permit 

adjustments may be an appropriate antibacksliding measure. However, in cases 

where recent actual emissions exceed 

the established selection criteria (e.g., 

Kingsford Manufacturing Company and 

Owens-Brockway Glass Container Inc.), 

we recommend that facilities not be 

allowed to back out of selection by 

accepting permitted emission 

reductions in lieu of implementing costeffective emission controls identified 

through four-factor analyses.’’ 

Response: The EPA agrees that in 

cases where recent actual emissions 

would not have triggered source 

selection, permit adjustments are an 

appropriate anti-backsliding measure. 

As demonstrated in table 4 of our 

proposed rulemaking, this was the case 

for all facilities that accepted Plant Site 

Emission Limits (PSELs) for nitrogen 

oxides (NOX), sulfur dioxide (SO2), and/ 

or coarse particulate matter (PM10), 

except the two cases noted by the NPS, 

Kingsford Manufacturing Company and 

Owens-Brockway Glass Container Inc.16

Information on Kingsford 

Manufacturing was included as a 

footnote to table 4, ‘‘ODEQ 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.’’ ODEQ used 

this 2019 information, and the 

accompanying PSEL conditions 

submitted in the Title V permit for 

approval into Oregon’s SIP, in making 

its May 22, 2020, determination that 

‘‘that Kingsford is not required to 

perform a four factor analysis for their 

Springfield facility during this round of 

the Regional Haze program.’’ 17 In a case 

like Kingsford Manufacturing Company, 

where contemporaneous information 

shows a significant, permanent change 

in emissions, we believe it was 

reasonable for Oregon to reassess the 

agency’s source selection and control 

determination to incorporate more 

recent information. 

Similarly, ODEQ’s evaluation of 

control for the Owens-Brockway facility 

was influenced by contemporaneous 

events. Owens-Brockway was one of the 

few facilities that identified feasible 

cost-effective controls in the four-factor 

analysis process.18 As noted by the 

commenter, in an October 27, 2020, 

letter ODEQ concurred with the findings 

that combined control of NOX, SO2 and 

PM by catalytic ceramic filters (CCF) 

was cost-feasible for glass-melting 

furnaces A and D at the OwensBrockway Portland facility.19

Subsequently, in June 2021, ODEQ 

initiated an enforcement response for air 

quality violations unrelated to the 

regional haze program.20 The 

enforcement response was still in 

progress during the summer of 2021, 

therefore ODEQ could not rely on the 

remedy being negotiated to resolve the 

human health violations (shutdown or 

imposition of pollution controls on 

Furnaces D).21 Instead, ODEQ 

negotiated and submitted a separate 

August 9, 2021, order focused 

specifically on reasonable progress for 

regional haze program.22 This order 

enshrined the shutdown of Furnace A 

and associated emissions reductions. 

The EPA disagrees with the 

commenter that the Regional Haze Rule 

prohibits a state which selects sources 

based on allowable emissions from 

refining its source selection based on 

permanent and enforceable reductions 

in allowable emissions. ODEQ 

determined that sources with a Q/d <5 

based on PSELs are not significant 

contributors to visibility impairment in 

Class I areas. Hence, controls on these 

sources are not necessary for reasonable 

progress. This holds true regardless of 

when in its SIP development process 

ODEQ made the determination. Most 

importantly, ODEQ ensured the PSEL 

reductions upon which it relied to 

determine that controls on OwenBrockway were not necessary and were 

permanent and enforceable by 

submitting a source-specific SAFO and 

conditions from Owens-Brockway’s title 

V permit. 

4. Use of a Stipulated Agreement and 

Final Order (SAFO) Versus a Unilateral 

Order 

Comment: ‘‘. . . Oregon proposed 

alternative compliance options for 

several facilities in lieu of reasonable, 

cost-effective controls identified 

through the four-factor review process. 

In general, the NPS has concerns with 

this approach and previously shared 

this view with Oregon in staff-to-staff 

meetings between 2020 and 2023, and 

in writing via October 2021 public 

comments on the draft SIP and August 

2023 consultation comments on the 

Oregon SIP supplement . . . The NPS 

also agrees that alternative compliance 

measures can be considered reasonable 

when accompanied by a technical 

demonstration that the emission 

reductions achieved will be equivalent 

to or better than those that would have 

resulted from requiring the controls 

identified through four-factor analysis. 

The NPS recommends that EPA require 

a technical demonstration detailing the 

actual emission reductions that will be 

achieved through alternative 

compliance and why the alternative 

compliance options are reasonable in 

light of the four statutory factors.’’ 

Response: The EPA disagrees that 

additional technical demonstrations are 

required to justify ODEQ’s 

determinations of the controls necessary 

for reasonable progress. As explained in 

our response to comment in section 

II.A.2 ‘‘Use of the Four Statutory Factors 

in Determining Reasonable Progress’’ of 

this preamble, characterizing the 

January 2021 ‘‘Preliminary 

Determination of Cost Effective Controls 

for Regional Haze’’ letters as final fourfactor control determinations and all 

subsequent correspondence and 

decisions after the preliminary letters as 

being outside the four-factor process is 

not an accurate portrayal of the Oregon 

process. Under OAR 340–223–0110(1), 

each affected facility was required to 

conduct a four-factor analysis compliant 

with OAR 340–223–0120 Four Factor 

Analysis. Using its authority under OAR 

340–223–0120(3), ODEQ adjusted the 

four-factor analyses for consistency with 

basic inputs such as interest rates, 

equipment lifetime, and potential to 

emit (PSEL) in determining the 

proposed cost-effective controls.23

However, it is clear from the text that 

the January 2021 preliminary letters are 

not final determinations nor 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES1
81366 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 195 / Tuesday, October 8, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

24See 108_haze-BosieCascade-Medford.pdf. 

25See 136_GilchristNoticeofApplicationfor

ESPinstall20210608.pdf. 

26See documents 246 through 251b included in 

the docket. 

27See 2019 Guidance, at page 46, Regional scale 

modeling of the LTS to set the RPGs for 2028. 

28See 77 FR 50611 (August 22, 2012). 

29See 79 FR 33438 (June 11, 2014). 

30See 702_staff report EQC meeting_072321_

ItemJ_RegionalHaze.pdf. 

31See 146_SAFONorthwestPiplineBaker.pdf, 

included in the docket for this action. 

independent four-factor analyses in 

themselves, ‘‘Based on the information 

provided in the four factor analysis, the 

cost information that you submitted, the 

additional information you provided, 

and the process DEQ is proposing to use 

to screen facilities, DEQ estimates the 

following controls are likely to be 

required at your facility . . . If you 

disagree with or would like to discuss 

DEQ’s preliminary determination as 

outlined in this letter, we encourage you 

to reach out to the DEQ now.’’ 24

Under OAR 340–223–0110(1), if a 

source accepted ODEQ’s preliminary 

determination, ODEQ could finalize the 

determinations in a unilateral order 

under OAR 340–223–0130, SAFO under 

OAR 340–223–0110(2)(b)(B), or other 

enforceable mechanism such as a permit 

modification.25 However, since nearly 

all the affected facilities asserted no 

feasible cost-effective controls in the 

four-factor analyses, this initiated a 

process from January 2021 to August 

2021 to review additional information 

regarding the technological feasibility 

and cost of controls pursuant to OAR 

340–223–0120(2), to determine the 

controls necessary to select sources and 

for reasonable progress, and impose 

these controls either through a 

unilateral order or SAFO. 

Each of the compliance options in 

OAR 340–223–0110(2) are either part of 

Oregon’s source selection methodology 

or grounded in the four-factor analysis 

required by OAR 340–223–0110(1) and 

0120. We do not interpret OAR 340– 

223–0110(2) as permitting alternatives 

to the requirements of the CAA or 

Regional Haze Rule. Rather, entering 

into a SAFO (agreed order) is an 

alternative administrative mechanism to 

impose controls necessary for 

reasonable progress that would have 

been contained in a unilateral order. 

Our review of Oregon’s Regional Haze 

SIP submission indicates that ODEQ 

continued to consider the four factors in 

its engagement with each of the sources 

after issuance of the preliminary 

determination letters. This is 

documented in appendices 1 through 6 

of Oregon’s November 22, 2023, SIP 

supplement.26 After considering the 

additional information regarding 

technological feasibility, cost of 

controls, energy and non-air quality 

impacts, and time necessary to impose 

the controls, ODEQ determined the 

appropriate administrative mechanism 

to impose the enforceable emission 

limitations. In most cases the most 

efficient and effective mechanism was a 

SAFO issued under OAR 340–223– 

0120(2). 

Based on our review of the 

administrative record, the EPA does not 

believe that the differences between the 

January 2021 preliminary control 

determinations and the final four-factor 

control determinations in the August 

2021 SAFOs are a function of the 

enforceable mechanism used (a 

unilateral order under OAR 340–223– 

0130 versus a SAFO issued under OAR 

340–223–0110(2)). Instead, as discussed 

in our facility-specific responses to 

comment, the differences appear to be a 

result of ODEQ’s consideration of 

technical feasibility and cost as 

documented in appendices 1–6 of the 

November 2023 supplement. Given that 

these SAFOs are outgrowths of ODEQ 

consideration of the four factors, rather 

than other factors, we disagree that 

additional evaluation is necessary. 

5. Compliance Deadlines 

Comment: ‘‘In the 2023 SIP 

supplement, Oregon extended the 

compliance deadlines for emission unit 

replacements (associated with 

alternative compliance) from July 31, 

2026, to July 31, 2031. This extended 

deadline is well beyond the end of the 

current regional haze planning period 

and will allow current emissions from 

affected facilities to continue without 

mitigation for an additional five years. 

In their 2019 regional haze guidance 

document, the EPA states that the 

reasonable progress goals ‘‘for the 

second implementation period are to be 

based only on the combined effect of the 

LTS measures with compliance dates on 

or before December 31, 2028.’’ 

Response: The citation to the EPA’s 

2019 Guidance provided by the 

commenter deals with modeling, and 

notes that states cannot claim projected 

2028 emissions reductions in the 

modeling if those control measures are 

not in effect by 2028.27 This is not a 

regulatory prohibition on controls 

outside the implementation period. The 

relevant regulatory citation is 40 CFR 

51.308(f)(2)(i), which requires that if a 

state concludes that a control measure 

cannot reasonably be installed and 

become operational until after the end 

of the implementation period, the state 

may not consider this fact in 

determining whether the measure is 

necessary to make reasonable progress. 

The clear implication is that controls 

after the end of the implementation 

period are allowable under the RHR if 

the determinations are reasonable. An 

example is Oregon’s regional haze plan 

for the first implementation period 

which adopted regulatory provisions to 

cease coal-fired electricity generation at 

the Boardman facility, however 

implementation of the measures 

(closure of the coal-fired operations) 

would not occur until the second 

planning period, in 2020.28 Another 

example is Washington’s regional haze 

plan for the first implementation period 

which required closure of the coal-fired 

units at the TransAlta facility, however 

closure of units was phased in 2020 and 

2025, during the second implementation 

period.29

With respect to Oregon’s 

determinations under the four factors, 

some pollution controls were imposed 

under 340–223–0110(2)(b)(B) and (C), 

which required installation of identified 

controls no later than July 31, 2026. For 

a subset of units, ODEQ used authority 

under OAR 340–223–0110(2)(b)(E), 

which allowed replacement of an 

emissions unit by no later than July 31, 

2031. The comment, ‘‘[i]n the 2023 SIP 

supplement, Oregon extended the 

compliance deadlines for emission unit 

replacements (associated with 

alternative compliance) from July 31, 

2026 to July 31, 2031’’ is a misreading 

of the Oregon regional haze rules. The 

July 31, 2026, compliance deadlines 

under OAR 340–223–0110(2)(b)(B) and 

(C) apply to retrofit options. Instead, 

ODEQ followed the compliance 

deadline in OAR 340–223–0110(2)(b)(E) 

which applies to emissions unit 

replacement. These regulatory 

provisions were adopted by the Oregon 

Environmental Quality Commission 

after a full public comment period from 

May 28, 2021, to June 30, 2021, and a 

hearing conducted on June 28, 2021.30

We also believe that the comment, 

‘‘[i]n the 2023 SIP supplement, Oregon 

extended the compliance deadlines for 

emission unit replacements (associated 

with alternative compliance) from July 

31, 2026 to July 31, 2031’’ is a 

misreading of the record. An example is 

the Northwest Pipeline Baker City 

facility. The original SAFO, effective 

August 9, 2021, did not include a 

concrete deadline for emissions unit 

replacement.31 In response to EPA 

comment, as indicated in the amended 

SAFO, ‘‘DEQ received comments from 

the U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency on the Regional Haze State 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 195 / Tuesday, October 8, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 81367 

32See 215_3.3.1_Attachment1.7.1_NWPipeline_

Baker_01–0038–A1_SAFO.pdf, included in the 

docket for this action. 

33April 29, 2022, regional haze SIP, at page 17. 

34See 2019 Guidance, at page 22–23. 

35Most recently updated August 10, 2022 (87 FR 

48606). 

36See 129_haze-GeorgiaPacific-WaunaMillFFA.pdf, at page 2–10. 

37See Chapter 6.3.4 Federal Land Manager 

Comments and DEQ Responses of Oregon’s April 

2022 submission, at page 126. 

38See 001_1.1_StaffReport_wAttachments, 

Attachment C.pdf, at page 15 of 58. 

Implementation Plan, requiring 

amendments to the SAFO,’’ ODEQ 

added a concrete compliance deadline 

for unit replacement and submitted the 

amended SAFO as part of the 2023 

supplement.32 In our review of the 

record we see no evidence to suggest 

ODEQ modified compliance deadlines 

without a clear basis under the four 

factors. 

Lastly, with respect to ODEQ’s 

application of OAR 340–223– 

0110(2)(b)(E), this must be viewed in the 

context of the overall mix of timelines 

(most before 2028) and the other 

controls imposed (primarily by July 31, 

2026). ODEQ evaluated 43 emissions 

units and a total of 62 control devices.33

Of this universe, ODEQ determined that 

unit replacement may be a reasonable 

control option for 10 units. Given the 

complexity and logistical challenges of 

complete emissions unit replacement, 

we believe ODEQ’s selective use of the 

full compliance deadline allowable 

under OAR 340–223–0110(2)(b)(E) is 

reasonable under the four factors of 

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

51.308(f)(2), including the time 

necessary for compliance. 

6. Standards for Emissions Unit 

Replacement 

Comment: ‘‘New emission units 

generally have lower emissions than 

older units. However, a wide variety of 

emissions are possible from new units. 

In several places, the Oregon SIP 

requires that new units ‘‘shall meet 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 submitting a permit 

application.’’ As the NPS shared with 

ODEQ during SIP supplement 

consultation, this may not be adequately 

protective because new source 

performance standards (NSPS) are 

frequently less stringent than best 

available control technology (BACT)- 

level controls or those that may be 

deemed reasonable through a four-factor 

analysis.’’ 

Response: As a fundamental matter, 

the EPA disagrees that best available 

control technology (BACT) is an 

appropriate threshold for evaluating 

Oregon’s determinations of the controls 

necessary for reasonable progress for the 

second planning period. For a source 

recently permitted to BACT standards, it 

may be reasonable for the state to argue 

that these controls are equivalent to or 

more stringent than controls that would 

be derived under the regional haze fourfactor process.34 However, the inverse is 

not true. It is not the EPA’s expectation 

that controls derived under the regional 

haze four-factor process necessarily 

meet the stringency level of BACT. 

With respect to the comment that 

Oregon’s control determinations may 

not be adequately protective because 

new source performance standards 

(NSPS) are frequently less stringent than 

those that may be deemed reasonable 

through a four-factor analysis, we 

disagree. Many of the existing units that 

Oregon reviewed emit significantly 

more NOX, carbon monoxide, and 

volatile organic compounds than new 

units meeting the emission limits in 40 

CFR part 60, subpart Subpart JJJJ— 

Standards of Performance for Stationary 

Spark Ignition Internal Combustion 

Engines.35 Thus, replacement of these 

existing units with new units meeting 

the NSPS will result in substantial 

emissions reductions. Therefore, we 

disagree that these standards are not 

adequately protective. 

Finally, under OAR 340–223–0110(1) 

all affected facilities submitted fourfactor analyses. These analyses were 

conducted by independent consultants 

and/or certified professional engineers 

on behalf of the sources. In all instances 

that ultimately resulted in unit 

replacement, these independent 

consultants and/or certified professional 

engineers provided four-factor 

demonstrations that there were ‘‘no 

feasible cost-effective’’ controls. Rather 

than accepting these ‘‘no feasible costeffective’’ control demonstrations pro 

forma, ODEQ used its authority under 

OAR 340–223–0110(2)(b)(E) to compel 

significant future reductions (emission 

unit replacement) beyond the initial 

four-factor analyses. The example of 

Northwest Pipeline, Baker City is 

illustrative. This facility has three 

natural gas-fired reciprocating engines 

dating from 1956 (EU1) and one engine 

dating from 1981 (EU2). The four-factor 

analysis asserted the only feasible 

technology was low emission 

combustion retrofit with calculated costeffectiveness of $25,850 for EU1 and 

$24,243 for EU2. Considering the 

significant emissions reductions from 

replacing these old engines, we believe 

this is a reasonable approach to 

considering the four statutory factors in 

determining the controls necessary for 

reasonable progress. 

7. Wauna Facility—Biomass-Fired 

Fluidized Bed Boiler 

Comment: ‘‘The Georgia Pacific— 

Wauna Mill and Roseburg Forest 

Products—Dillard have the highest 

cumulative impact on NPS Class I areas. 

The NPS is generally satisfied with the 

outcome of the control determinations 

for these facilities. However, we note 

that ODEQ has not addressed the NPS 

recommendation to evaluate addition of 

low NOX burners and flue gas 

recirculation to reduce NOX emissions 

from the Georgia Pacific—Wauna Mill 

biomass-fired fluidized bed boiler 

which could further reduce hazecausing emissions from that facility.’’ 

Response: The EPA reviewed 

Oregon’s April 2022 and November 

2023 submissions and associated 

documents. We found citations related 

to the biomass-fired fluidized bed boiler 

at the Wauna facility. However, we 

found no record of a prior comment by 

the NPS directly related to the ‘‘NPS 

recommendation to evaluate addition of 

low NOX burners and flue gas 

recirculation to reduce NOX emissions 

from the Georgia Pacific—Wauna Mill 

biomass-fired fluidized bed boiler.’’ 

Below is a summary of the 

administrative record reviewed by the 

EPA. 

On June 15, 2020, Georgia-Pacific 

submitted a four-factor analysis that 

stated, ‘‘LNB [low NOX burners] are not 

feasible for GP Wauna’s Fluidized Bed 

Boiler. The natural gas burners are only 

for auxiliary use and do not drive NOX

emissions from the unit. The boiler 

already employs SNCR to reduce NOX

emissions from the bubbling fluidized 

bed.’’ 36 As part of the May 2021 FLM 

consultation draft process, the NPS 

comments focused entirely on selective 

catalytic reduction (SCR) cost 

calculations for this unit and made no 

mention of LNB.37 In its October 29, 

2021, comments NPS did state, ‘‘We 

recommend that ODEQ’s draft SIP more 

thoroughly address emissions from GP 

Wauna by including an analysis of 

emissions from the Fluidized Bed 

Boiler.’’ 38 However, the contents of the 

comments again focused exclusively on 

SCR costs, with no specific mention of 

LNB at this unit. Additional comments 

submitted on August 29, 2023, as part 

of the FLM consultation process for the 

November 2023 regional haze 

supplement, make no mention of SCR or 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES1
81368 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 195 / Tuesday, October 8, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

39See 703_NPS Oregon Regional Haze SIP 

Supplement Consultation.pdf. 40See 129_haze-GeorgiaPacific-WaunaMillFFA.pdf, at page 2–10. 

41 130_haze-GeorgiaPacificWauanMill.pdf. 

42See 249_3.3.2_Appendix4_

Georgia.Pacific.Toledo_Correspondence.pdf., at 

page 349 of the PDF. 

43See 132_haze-GeorgiaPacific-Toledo-FFA.pdf, 

at page 2–21. 

44See 201_RH_Round2_Supplement_Final.pdf, at 

page 17 and 249_3.3.2_Appendix4_Georgia.Pacific.

Toledo_Correspondence.pdf, at page 394 of the 

PDF. 

45See 241_3.3.1_Attachment5.8_21-0005_SAFO_

A1_GeorgiaPacific_Toledo (final signed).pdf. 

46See 249_3.3.2_Appendix4_Georgia.Pacific.

Toledo_Correspondence.pdf, included in the docket 

for this action. 

47See 713_GP Toledo_supporting memo.pdf, 

included in the docket for this action. 

48 Id. 

49See https://www.epa.gov/air-emissions-factorsand-quantification/ap-42-compilation-air-emissions

-factors-stationary-sources and 711_AP42_1.4_

natural_gas_combustion.pdf, included in the 

docket for this action. 

50See 2019 Regional Haze Guidance at pp. 29–32. 

LNB at this specific unit.39 In the 

absence of more concrete information, 

we believe it was reasonable for ODEQ 

to rely on the determination in the fourfactor analysis that LNB was not feasible 

for the Fluidized Bed Boiler (FBB) 

because ‘‘natural gas burners are only 

for auxiliary use and do not drive NOX

emissions from the unit’’ 40 and was, 

therefore, not put forward by ODEQ as 

a potential control measure in the 

January 2021 ‘‘Preliminary 

Determination of Cost Effective Controls 

for Regional Haze’’ letter for this 

facility.41 The comment does not 

present information that clearly refutes 

the determination in the four-factor 

analysis that LNB/FGR is not feasible for 

the FBB at the Wauna Mill. 

8. Georgia-Pacific—Toledo LLC—Final 

Control Determination 

Comment: ‘‘We believe that selective 

catalytic reduction (SCR) remains a 

feasible and likely more rigorous NOX

emission control option for this facility 

than either of the options proposed . . . 

The NPS continues to recommend that 

ODEQ and EPA evaluate the 

incremental cost-effectiveness of SCR 

versus the proposed low NOX burners 

and flue gas recirculation control 

option.’’ 

Response: The June 2020 four-factor 

analysis prepared by ALL4 on behalf of 

the Georgia-Pacific Toledo facility 

calculated cost effectiveness for LNB 

with flue gas recirculation (LNB/FGR), 

selective non-catalytic reduction 

(SNCR), and SCR, as shown in table 2.42

TABLE 2—COST-EFFECTIVENESS OF CONTROLS ($/TON NOX) GEORGIA-PACIFIC—TOLEDO LLC 

Control technology Unit Calculated using 

PSEL 

Calculated using 

2017 actuals 

LNB/FGR ................................................................ EU–11 No. 4 Boiler ................................................ $9,717 $10,042 

LNB/FGR ................................................................ EU–13 No. 1 Boiler ................................................ 4,769 7,083 

LNB/FGR ................................................................ EU–18 No. 3 Boiler ................................................ 14,822 21,024 

SNCR ...................................................................... EU–11 No. 4 Boiler ................................................ 6,613 7,630 

SNCR ...................................................................... EU–13 No. 1 Boiler ................................................ 5,191 7,706 

SNCR ...................................................................... EU–18 No. 3 Boiler ................................................ 8,569 12,126 

SCR ........................................................................ EU–11 No. 4 Boiler ................................................ 11,067 12,173 

SCR ........................................................................ EU–13 No. 1 Boiler ................................................ 8,623 12,681 

SCR ........................................................................ EU–18 No. 3 Boiler ................................................ 13,579 19,057 

Georgia-Pacific’s June 2020 four-factor 

analysis indicates that SCR may be costeffective for the No. 1 Boiler when 

calculated using permitted allowable 

emissions (PSELs) under ODEQ’s 

methodology.43 However, as described 

in Section 5 of the November 2023 

regional haze supplement, Oregon 

found Georgia-Pacific’s April 30, 2021, 

follow-up four-factor analysis 

correspondence compelling with respect 

to both cost of compliance and energy 

and nonair quality environmental 

impacts of compliance.44 Therefore, 

Oregon issued its final control 

determination to require LNB/FGR or 

unit replacement for all three boilers 

under order number 21–0005, 

amendment A1.45

We believe that it was reasonable for 

ODEQ to appropriately weigh the 

‘‘energy and nonair quality 

environmental impacts of compliance’’ 

as well as the cost of compliance 

considerations raised in the April 30, 

2021, four-factor correspondence when 

determining the controls necessary for 

reasonable progress. 

9. Georgia-Pacific—Toledo LLC— 

Emission Limit 

Comment: ‘‘[I]t is unclear how the 

emission limit associated with 

compliance option 1 was derived. We 

suggest that a four-factor analysis or 

technical demonstration justifying the 

0.09 lb/MMBtu emission limit for NOX

associated with the proposed control 

option would improve the SIP.’’ 

Response: The emissions limit 

associated with compliance option 1 

was discussed in the April 30, 2021, 

four-factor analysis correspondence, 

included in Appendix 4 of ODEQ’s 2023 

supplement.46 As stated in the April 30, 

2021 letter, this limit was based on 

Georgia Pacific’s internal engineering 

experience and discussions with outside 

vendors. In our review of the four-factor 

analysis, the 0.09 lb/MMBtu emission 

limit for NOX represents a 68% 

reduction for boiler 1, a 45% reduction 

for boiler 3, and a 68% reduction for 

boiler 4.47 These reductions are 

generally comparable to the estimated 

emissions reductions in the four-factor 

analyses (79% for boiler 1, 47% for 

boiler 3, and 53% for boiler 4) which 

were calculated on a tons per year 

basis.48 As calculated in our supporting 

memo included in the docket for this 

action, the 0.09 lb/MMBtu emission 

limit for NOX is comparable and slightly 

more stringent than the EPA’s emissions 

factors contained in AP–42: 

Compilation of Air Emissions Factors 

from Stationary Sources for large wallfired boilers controlled with flue gas 

recirculation.49 Therefore, we believe 

ODEQ’s selection of the final emissions 

limit is adequately justified, 

documented, and an acceptable means 

of refining the estimated emission rate 

contained in the four-factor analysis for 

the purposes of characterizing the cost 

of compliance.50

10. Georgia-Pacific—Toledo LLC 

Emissions—Unit Replacement 

Comment: ‘‘Nevertheless, the NPS 

supports compliance option 1. 

Installation of low NOX burners and flue 

gas recirculation will secure a 64% NOX

reduction from Georgia-Pacific—Toledo 

LLC during the second implementation 

period (2018–2028). In contrast, 

compliance option 2 would defer 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 195 / Tuesday, October 8, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 81369 

51See 201_RH_Round2_Supplement_Final.pdf, at 

page 17. 

52See 132_haze-GeorgiaPacific-Toledo-FFA.pdf, 

at page 2–17. 

53See 110_haze-CascadePacificPulp-HalseyMillFFA.pdf. 

54See 110_haze-CascadePacificPulp-HalseyMillFFA.pdf, at page 2–21. 

55See 111_haze-CascasePacificPulp.pdf. 

56See 2019 Guidance, Selection of emissions 

information for characterizing emissions-related 

factors, at page 30 and Use of actual emissions 

versus allowable emissions, at page 17. 

57See 201_RH_Round2_Supplement_Final.pdf, at 

page 18. 

58See 248_3.3.2_Appendix3_

Cascade.Pacific.Pulp_.Halsey_Correspondence.pdf 

at page 579 of the PDF. 

59 I.d., at page 581 of the PDF. 

60See 112_SAFO22-3501CPPHalsey.pdf. 

61See 201_RH_Round2_Supplement_Final.pdf, at 

page 18. 

62See 243_3.3.1_Attachment6.1_22-3501_A2_

SAFO_CPP_Halsey_Final_signed.pdf. 

emission reductions for an additional 

five years, beyond the end of the 

planning period.’’ 

Response: In the April 30, 2021, 

response letter to ODEQ, Georgia-Pacific 

stated, ‘‘The GP Toledo Mill has three 

affected power boilers (Nos. 1, 3, and 4 

Power Boilers) and needs flexibility in 

determining if burners will be replaced 

in each unit or whether one or two new 

boilers will be constructed to replace 

these three units . . . Steam supply is 

a significant operational consideration 

for any pulp and paper manufacturing 

facility. Each GP mill requires steam in 

the pulp production process as well as 

the papermaking process. As such, 

changes to steam producing assets 

require substantial consideration of and 

planning for the assets themselves as 

well as the entire pulp and paper 

manufacturing process to minimize 

disruptions to overall mill operations. 

Both mills will need sufficient time to 

plan the boiler projects with both 

internal and external engineering 

resources, and then implement the 

changes with as little interruption to 

mill operations as possible. Therefore, 

GP is requesting an extended timeframe 

for implementation of these boiler 

projects.’’ As noted in the 2023 

supplement to the regional haze plan, 

ODEQ considered this correspondence 

in determining under CAA section 

169A(g)(1) and 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2) ‘‘the 

time necessary for compliance’’ that a 

deadline of July 31, 2031, was 

appropriate should complete emission 

unit replacement be necessary.51

The EPA has reviewed SAFO 21– 

0005, the subsequent amendment 

effective December 5, 2022, and the 

associated four-factor analysis. Based on 

the four-factor analysis, installing LNB 

and flue gas recirculation based on 2017 

actual emissions had cost effectiveness 

figures of EU 11 = $10,042, EU 13 = 

$7,083, and EU18 = $21,024.52

Considering that for two of the boilers 

the cost effectiveness figure exceed 

$10,000/ton, we believe it was 

reasonable for ODEQ to provide 

flexibility on a unit-by-unit basis in 

providing the two compliance options: 

(1) full unit replacement by 2031; or (2) 

installation of LNB with flue gas 

recirculation by 2026. 

11. Cascade Pacific Pulp, LLC—Halsey 

Pulp Mill Power Boilers—SCR 

Comment: ‘‘The Oregon SIP requires 

this facility to eliminate use of no. 6 fuel 

oil by June 30, 2024, 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 no 

later than July 31, 2031, and, upon 

replacement of power boiler #2, limit 

emissions from power boiler #1 to no 

more than 27 tons of NOX per year . . . 

SCR may still be a feasible and more 

rigorous NOX emission control option 

for the power boiler #1 than the control 

determination requires. In its Good 

Neighbor Plan, EPA recently determined 

that SCR is technically feasible to 

control NOx emissions from natural gasfired industrial boilers at pulp and 

paper mills.’’ 

Response: On June 15, 2020, Cascade 

Pacific Pulp, LLC submitted a fourfactor analysis prepared by the 

environmental consulting service ALL4 

Inc.53 With respect to SCR, ALL4 

calculated the cost effectiveness of SCR 

($/ton NOX reduced) on CPP Halsey 

power boiler #1 to be $16,029 based on 

2017 PSEL and $38,292 based on 2017 

actual emissions. ALL4 calculated the 

cost effectiveness for CPP Halsey power 

boiler #2 to be $28,349 based on 2017 

PSEL and $204,083 based on 2017 

actual emissions.54 Using its authority 

under OAR 340–223–0120(3), ODEQ 

preliminarily adjusted the four-factor 

analyses using conservative inputs such 

as interest rate (3.25%), equipment 

lifetime (30 years), and potential to emit 

(PSEL). However, after these 

adjustments, ODEQ did not find SCR 

cost-effective at the $10,000 threshold as 

evidenced by the agency’s 

determination to propose LNB with flue 

gas recirculation instead of SCR for 

power boiler #1 as part of the 

‘‘Preliminary Determination of Cost 

Effective Controls’’ letter.55

In our 2019 guidance, we recommend 

the use of recent actuals or projected 

actuals rather than allowable emissions 

(PSELs) in calculating costeffectiveness.56 Considering the SCR 

cost effectiveness at these units based 

on the recent actual emissions 

contained in the four-factor analysis 

($38,292 for power boiler #1 and 

$204,083 for power boiler #2), we have 

no reasonable basis to dispute Oregon’s 

determination that SCR was not cost 

effective for these units. 

12. Cascade Pacific Pulp, LLC—Halsey 

Pulp Mill Power Boilers—LNB 

Comment: ‘‘It is unclear how the 

future emission limit associated with 

the replacement of power boiler #2 was 

derived. We believe that a four-factor 

analysis or technical demonstration 

justifying the 0.036 lbs NOX/MMBtu 

emission limit would improve the SIP.’’ 

Response: The EPA acknowledges 

that ODEQ’s decision-making for the 

August 25, 2023, final control 

determination under SAFO 22–3501–A2 

could have been clearer in the SIP 

submissions. However, ODEQ’s SIP 

submissions ultimately meet the 

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

to document the technical basis, 

including modeling, monitoring, cost, 

engineering, and emissions information, 

on which the state relied to determine 

the emission reduction measures that 

are necessary for reasonable progress. 

With respect to Cascade Pacific Pulp, 

LLC—Halsey Pulp Mill Power Boilers, 

ODEQ’s November 2023 regional haze 

supplement documents ODEQ’s process 

for its reasonable progress 

determination.57 The 2023 supplement 

states that, on January 21, 2021, ODEQ 

proposed that LNB with flue gas 

recirculation on power boiler #1 could 

be cost effective and included this 

control as part of the ‘‘Preliminary 

Determination of Cost Effective 

Controls’’ letter.58 On January 27, 2021, 

Cascade Pacific Pulp responded by 

questioning ODEQ’s cost analysis and 

submitting a revised cost analysis 

performed by ALL4 consulting service 

for power boiler #1.59 On August 9, 

2021, Cascade Pacific Pulp and ODEQ 

entered into SAFO 22–3501, 

establishing installation of a LNB on 

power boiler #1.60 On February 1, 2022, 

the parties agreed to amend the order to 

allow the option of unit replacement for 

power boiler #1.61 On August 25, 2023, 

the parties again amended the order to 

allow the unit replacement of power 

boiler #2 instead of power boiler #1.62

While ODEQ’s documentation could 

have been more robust, the commenter 

does not provide information to indicate 

that ODEQ’s determination was 

unreasonable or inadequate. ODEQ’s 

January 21, 2021, preliminary control 

determination and subsequent SAFO 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES1
81370 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 195 / Tuesday, October 8, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

63See 248_3.3.2_Appendix3_

Cascade.Pacific.Pulp_.Halsey_Correspondence.pdf, 

at page 581 of the pdf. 

64See 248_3.3.2_Appendix3_

Cascade.Pacific.Pulp_.Halsey_Correspondence.pdf. 

65See 2019 Guidance, Selection of emissions 

information for characterizing emissions-related 

factors, at page 30 and Use of actual emissions 

versus allowable emissions, at page 17. 

66See 712_CPP Halsey_supporting memo.pdf, 

included in the docket for this action. 

67See 110_haze-CascadePacificPulp-HalseyMillFFA.pdf, included in the docket for this action. 

68See 251b_Appendix6_

InternationalPaper.SpringfieldMill_

Correspondence.pdf, at page 4 of the PDF. 

69See 139_SAFODEQ-LRAPA-IP.pdf. 

modifications are direct outgrowths of 

ODEQ’s review of and action upon the 

June 15, 2020, four-factor analysis. This 

four-factor analysis (as revised on 

January 27, 2021) asserted that LNB 

with flue gas recirculation was not costeffective for power boiler #1 ($10,559 

per ton reduced based on PSEL and 

$26,446 per ton reduced based on 2017 

actual emissions).63 To the extent that 

LNB with flue gas recirculation (as 

proposed in ODEQ’s preliminary 

determination) may be above Oregon’s 

$10,000 per ton cost effectiveness 

threshold, as asserted by the ALL4 

analysis, or may be below Oregon’s 

$10,000 per ton threshold with a 

different assumption set, the EPA does 

not see a compelling basis to dispute 

ODEQ’s final control determination. 

First, it is clear from our review of the 

administrative record that ODEQ 

conducted a multi-year, extensive effort 

to evaluate control options under the 

four statutory factors of CAA section 

169A(g)(1).64 Second, Oregon’s $10,000 

per ton cost effectiveness threshold is 

one of the highest in the nation, if not 

the highest, applied specifically under 

the regional haze program. If the EPA 

were to conduct its own independent 

cost analysis, the EPA would not 

necessarily use a $10,000 threshold for 

determining reasonable progress 

controls. Third, ODEQ chose a more 

stringent methodology than the EPA’s 

2019 guidance recommends in 

calculating cost effectiveness using 

allowable emissions (PSELs). Use of 

recent actuals or projected actuals in 

accordance with the 2019 guidance 65

would almost certainly result in a less 

stringent outcome than ODEQ’s 

methodology. Lastly, as noted in a 

previous response to comment, Oregon 

engaged in a rigorous process to 

improve the accuracy of the facility 

submitted four-factor analyses, rather 

than accepting the initial conclusions 

pro forma. In the case of Cascade Pacific 

Pulp Halsey, Oregon’s process resulted 

in significant future emissions 

reductions (unit replacement) well 

beyond the four-factor analysis 

submitted pursuant to OAR 340–223– 

0110(1) which concluded there were no 

feasible cost-effective controls. More 

details on the 0.036 lbs NOX/MMBtu 

emission limit imposed by ODEQ are 

discussed in section II.A.13 of this 

preamble. 

13. Cascade Pacific Pulp, LLC—Halsey 

Pulp Mill Power Boilers—Compliance 

Deadline and Emission Limit 

Comment: ‘‘The NPS supports the 

elimination of #6 fuel oil. However, 

replacing power boiler #2 on the 

identified schedule and requiring 

emission reductions from power boiler 

#1 following power boiler #2’s 

replacement will defer emission 

reductions beyond the end of the 

planning period (see above for 

additional discussion).’’ 

Response: In a discussion with the 

EPA, ODEQ explained how the agency’s 

perspective regarding emissions unit 

replacement evolved through the fourfactor analysis process.66 ODEQ found 

that new, purpose-built units with 

controls like LNB built in offered 

superior emissions reductions compared 

to the limitations of retrofitting an older 

unit. For units like the Halsey power 

boilers built in 1968, this was 

particularly notable. ODEQ weighed the 

superior emissions reductions of 

emissions unit replacement against the 

additional time necessary for 

compliance (2031 for unit replacement 

versus 2023 for retrofit in the original 

SAFO) and determined that this was a 

reasonable trade-off in considering the 

significantly improved emissions 

reductions. 

The EPA reviewed the four-factor 

analysis 67 and the emissions reductions 

expected to result from the LNB/FGR 

retrofit of power boiler #1 as required in 

SAFO 22–3501 as well as the emissions 

reductions resulting from replacement 

of power boiler #2 as required in SAFO 

22–3501–A2. As described in our 

supporting memo to the docket, and 

based on our calculations, the LNB/FGR 

retrofit of power boiler #1 could 

potentially be expected to result in a 

reduction in NOX emissions of 0.07 lb/ 

MMBtu, while complete emission unit 

replacement of power boiler #2 as the 

primary steam production will result in 

a reduction in NOX emissions of 

between 0.145–0.185 lb/MMBtu. 

Replacement of power boiler #2 will 

therefore result in significantly more 

reductions in NOX emissions than LNB/ 

FGR retrofit of power boiler #1. 

Therefore, the EPA believes this is a 

credible rationale and indicates that the 

state appropriately considered the four 

factors in determining the controls 

necessary for reasonable progress. 

14. International Paper—Springfield— 

Emission Limit 

Comment: ‘‘According to the fourfactor analysis provided in the Oregon 

SIP, the recent actual emission rate 

achieved by the International Paper— 

Springfield power boiler is 0.22 lb NOX/ 

MMBtu. Therefore, this control 

determination, requiring an emission 

limit of 0.25 lb NOX/MMBtu, may allow 

an increase in emissions from the 

primary emission unit at the facility. 

The Good Neighbor Plan limits NOX

emissions from natural gas-fired boilers 

like the power boiler to 0.08 lb/mmBtu. 

The NPS recommends that EPA and 

ODEQ set a NOX emission limit 

consistent with the Good Neighbor Plan. 

The current control determination for 

this facility lowers the allowable 

permitted emissions but will not 

actually reduce haze-causing 

emissions.’’ 

Response: The EPA disagrees. The 

estimated recent actual emission rate is 

not directly comparable to the 

prescribed emission limit. The 0.22 lb 

NOX/MMBtu emission rate cited by the 

commenter is described in Appendix 6 

of Oregon’s November 2023 

supplement, ‘‘All emissions used in the 

4FA Report for 2017 were previously 

reported in the 2017 Annual report to 

Lane Regional Air Protection Agency 

(LRAPA) with one notable exception. 

The Power Boiler NOX emissions for the 

4FA Report were determined by the 

Continuous Parameter Monitoring 

System Formula per Title V, permit 

condition 186.g. The NOX reported in 

the Annual report was based upon the 

maximum emission factor of 0.46 lb/ 

MMBtu. The weighted average emission 

factor determined from the Continuous 

Parameter Monitoring System Formula 

is 0.2195 lb/MMBtu which was used to 

determine the actual NOX tons for 2017 

from the Power Boiler.’’ 68

The EPA notes that the 0.2195 lb/ 

MMBtu figure used in the 2017 Annual 

report is an annual average emission 

factor whereas the 0.25 lb NOX/MMbtu 

emission limit is based on a 7-day 

rolling average.69 Thus, ODEQ was 

reasonable in considering the emission 

rate the Power Boiler could achieve 

averaged over a rolling 7-day period 

rather than an annual period. Moreover, 

there are numerous variables and 

assumptions inherent in the formula 

used in the prior Title V permit to 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 195 / Tuesday, October 8, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 81371 

70 Id. 

71Clarifications Regarding Regional Haze State 

Implementation Plans for the Second 

Implementation Period, July 8, 2021, at page 8. 

72See 2019 Guidance, Selection of emissions 

information for characterizing emissions-related 

factors, at page 30 and Use of actual emissions 

versus allowable emissions, at page 17. 

73See 251b_Appendix6_

InternationalPaper.SpringfieldMill_

Correspondence.pdf, at page 2 of the PDF. 

74 Id. 

75See 138_haze-InternationalPaper.pdf. 

76See 251b_Appendix6_

InternationalPaper.SpringfieldMill_

Correspondence.pdf, at page 573 of the PDF. 

77 Id, at page 557 of the PDF. 

78 Id, at page 576 of the PDF. 

79 Id. 

80See 251b_Appendix6_

InternationalPaper.SpringfieldMill_

Correspondence.pdf, at page 2 of the PDF. 

81See 84 FR 22376 (May 17, 2019). 

82On June 27, 2024, the Supreme Court of the 

United States issued a stay of the rule pending 

review in the United States Court of Appeals for the 

District of Columbia Circuit Ohio et al. v. EPA, 603 

U.S. ll (2024), available at https://

www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/23a349_

0813.pdf. 

83See 88 FR 36654 (June 5, 2023), at page 36740. 

derive the emissions factor. In 

particular, Condition 186.g of the prior 

Title V permit included two emission 

factor formulas: one for natural gas flow 

rate less than or equal to 380MSCF/Hr 

and one for greater than 380MSCF/Hr. 

Each of these formulas contains a fixed 

multiplier and fixed correction factor. 

Any variation in each of these variables 

would yield a different emission rate. 

ODEQ was reasonable in taking these 

circumstances into consideration when 

setting the emission rate the company 

must achieve on a 7-day average basis. 

The EPA disagrees with the assertion 

that this short-term emission limit will 

lead to long-term emissions increases 

compared to recent actuals. Moreover, 

ODEQ is requiring CEMS—a reliable 

method of monitoring and recording 

emissions data.70 This data will assure 

compliance with the emission rate and 

also inform later planning periods. 

With respect to the comments that 

ODEQ’s reasonable progress 

determination will not reduce 

emissions, we note that reasonable 

progress has two prongs: the prevention 

of any future anthropogenic visibility 

impairment and the remedying of any 

existing anthropogenic visibility 

impairment.71 The commenter is 

assuming that recent actuals are 

necessarily determinative of projected 

future actuals through 2028. This is not 

necessarily the case. Without lower 

PSELs, Springfield could ramp up 

production and emissions. Thus, ODEQ 

decision to lower PSELs to align with 

recent actuals is consistent with the 

Regional Haze Rule and CAA. 

Setting aside this meaningful 

difference in the monitoring and 

compliance method, the process ODEQ 

used to determine the controls 

necessary for reasonable progress for 

International Paper underscores the 

ODEQ’s reasonableness. Importantly, 

ODEQ calculated cost thresholds based 

on allowable emissions (PSELs) versus 

recent actual emissions (2017). This 

decision was a driving force behind 

ODEQ’s preliminary control 

determinations and enabled the state to 

adjust the initial four-factor analyses to 

ultimately determine the controls 

necessary for reasonable progress. 

As noted in our response to comment 

in section II.A.11 Cascade Pacific Pulp, 

LLC—Halsey Pulp Mill Power Boilers— 

SCR of this preamble, Oregon’s decision 

to calculate cost thresholds based on 

allowable emissions was much more 

stringent than the EPA’s 

recommendation in the 2019 

guidance.72 For a facility like 

International Paper, the difference 

between 2017 actuals (724 tons per year 

NOX) 73 and allowable PSEL emissions 

(1692 tons per year NOX) 74 resulted in 

dramatic differences in the cost 

effectiveness of control calculations ($ 

per ton of NOX reduced) as shown in 

table 3 of this preamble. On January 21, 

2021, ODEQ used PSEL cost 

effectiveness of controls to propose SCR 

for the power boiler in the agency’s 

‘‘Preliminary Determination of Cost 

Effective Controls’’ letter.75 On February 

2, 2021, International Paper objected to 

ODEQ using allowable PSEL emissions 

in determining the cost effectiveness of 

controls.76 International Paper also 

raised this issue in its September 18, 

2020, letter to ODEQ stating, ‘‘In 

addition, we are concerned by DEQ’s 

misdirected focus on reducing Plant Site 

Emission Limits (PSEL) rather than 

focusing upon the impact to visibility 

impairment of actual emissions. 

Focusing on PSEL in the evaluation of 

cost effectiveness for controls 

compounds the inequity of DEQ’s 

approach to this process compared to 

other Western States. The Springfield 

Mill’s cost effectiveness for actual 

emission reduction is well above the 

previously discussed threshold of 

$10,000/ton for all of the pollution 

control units listed by DEQ.’’ 77

International Paper then provided a 

March 15, 2021, memorandum from the 

ALL4 environmental consulting firm 

providing updated costs of controls, 

mirroring the parameters used in 

ODEQ’s preliminary control 

determination (3.25% interest rate and 

30-year equipment life).78 In the same 

memorandum, ALL4 recommended that 

International Paper request a 179 ton 

per year NOX PSEL and 0.25 lb NOX/ 

MMBtu emissions limit for the power 

boiler so that the calculation of cost 

effectiveness based on PSEL will more 

closely align with cost calculations 

based on actual emissions, yielding cost 

effectiveness of controls calculated to be 

$10,956 (LNB/FGR), $10,239 (SNCR), 

and $14,237 (SCR). 

ODEQ’s consideration of imposing 

SCR as part of the agency’s preliminary 

control determination was only possible 

by using allowable emissions well above 

actual emissions, PSEL emissions (1692 

tons per year NOX) 79 versus actual 2017 

emissions (724 tons per year NOX).80 In 

addition to the important fuel restriction 

requirements noted by the NPS, SAFO 

208850 (effective August 9, 2021) was 

intended by Oregon as an antibacksliding measure to prevent 

International Paper from future 

emissions growth during the second 

implementation period that may 

jeopardize reasonable progress. 

Lastly, with respect to the 

commenter’s recommendation that EPA 

and ODEQ set a NOX emission limit 

consistent with the Good Neighbor Plan, 

we note that Oregon is not subject to the 

Good Neighbor Plan. This regulation 

was published on June 5, 2023 (88 FR 

36654) to address the specific issue of 

human health impacts from ozone 

nonattainment, which has a different 

regulatory structure and requirements 

than the regional haze program. The 

EPA already determined that Oregon 

does not cause or contribute to ozone 

nonattainment in any other state.81 For 

the specific set of states subject to the 

Good Neighbor Plan,the rule established 

emission limits for a broad suite of 

source categories including boilers in 

Iron and Steel Mills and Ferroalloy 

Manufacturing, Metal Ore Mining, Basic 

Chemical Manufacturing, Petroleum and 

Coal Products Manufacturing, and Pulp, 

Paper, and Paperboard Mills.82 This is 

distinctively different than the regional 

haze four-factor analysis process which 

often focuses on source-specific factors 

in the evaluation. Another difference is 

that the emissions limit cited by the 

NPS applies only during the ozone 

season, directly for the purpose of 

addressing ozone nonattainment. Lastly, 

the Good Neighbor Plan for ozone 

estimated average cost-effectiveness per 

ton for pulp and paper facilities at 

$14,134,83 which is not necessarily 

comparable to the threshold for 

determining the controls necessary for 

reasonable progress toward natural 

visibility conditions. Therefore, the NPS 

would need to provide greater detail to 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES1
81372 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 195 / Tuesday, October 8, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

84April 22, 2022, regional haze SIP submission, 

at page 172. 85See https://www.oregon.gov/deq/programs/ 

pages/owensbrockway.aspx. 86See 151_SAFOOwensBrockway0840001.pdf. 

87See April 22, 2022, regional haze SIP, at page 

22–27. 

88See April 22, 2022, regional haze SIP, at page 

24. 

89See 024_RHSIP2021.notice.pdf, at page 3, 

included in the docket for this action. 

90See https://www.epa.gov/air-emissionsinventories/air-pollutant-emissions-trends-data. 

demonstrate the site-specific 

assumptions used to assert that a 0.08 

lb/mmBtu limit is technically feasible 

and cost-effective under the four-factor 

regional haze analysis process, 

especially in light of the information in 

table 3 of this preamble showing that 

LNB/FGR, SNCR, and SCR were only 

possible for preliminary costeffectiveness consideration using 

allowable 2017 PSEL emissions (1,692 

tpy NOX), well above actual 2017 

emissions (724 tpy NOX).84

TABLE 3—COMPARISON OF COST-EFFECTIVE CONTROLS ($/TON NOX) INTERNATIONAL PAPER—SPRINGFIELD POWER

BOILER

Control technology June 2020 FFA 

(PSEL) 

June 2020 FFA 

(2017 actual) 

March 2021 memorandum 

(179 ton per year NOX

PSEL to align with 

recent actual emissions) 

LNB and FGR .............................................................................................. $2,928 $18,228 $10,956

SNCR ........................................................................................................... 3,483 16,103 10,239 

SCR ............................................................................................................. 4,606 22,924 14,237 

15. Owens-Brockway Glass Container 

Inc. 

Comment: ‘‘In this specific case, the 

NPS is aware that ODEQ is requiring the 

installation of controls outside of the 

regional haze process because of 

violations of the facility’s particulate 

matter and opacity limits. The ODEQ 

issued a construction permit in 

November 2022 requiring installation of 

a new catalytic ceramic filter pollution 

control system that must be installed by 

June 30, 2024. The system will control 

multiple pollutants, including 

particulate matter, NOX, and SO2. A 

draft title V operating permit, currently 

undergoing public review, would 

impose new PSELs that will limit the 

facility’s Q to 127 tons after the controls 

are installed, resulting in a Q/d of about 

0.9 for the nearest NPS Class I area, 

Mount Rainier National Park in 

Washington . . . This control 

technology was also identified as 

reasonable based on evaluation of the 

four factors. The NPS agrees that 

installation of the ceramic filter system 

is reasonable and will result in 

meaningful reductions in haze-causing 

emissions. The NPS recommends EPA 

require incorporation of this control 

requirement into the regional haze SIP 

to ensure realization of emission 

reductions from control installation in 

this planning period.’’ 

Response: The special case of the 

Owens-Brockway facility is discussed in 

section II.A.3 this preamble. Permit 

modifications to implement the humanhealth enforcement response are still 

ongoing.85 We see no basis for 

disapproval or continued delay of the 

regional haze SIP action while Oregon 

completes its human health 

enforcement response, especially 

considering the 75% emissions 

reductions from 2017 actuals and 

permanent shutdown of Furnace A 

imposed by ODEQ’s August 9, 2021, 

regional haze-specific order.86

B. Environmental Organizations’ 

Comments 

Complete copies of the Environmental 

Organizations’ comments and 

supporting attachments are included in 

the docket for this action. For 

readability, we arranged the responses 

to generally mirror the timeline of the 

Oregon process from site selection, 

review of controls, and imposition of 

controls. 

1. Stationary Source Contribution 

Comment: ‘‘We submitted public 

comments to Oregon’s Department of 

Environmental Quality (‘‘DEQ’’) on the 

state’s draft SIP Revision on November 

1, 2021, and on October 21, 2023, 

raising several of the same issues with 

Oregon’s proposed regulation of 

stationary sources that collectively 

contribute 80% of the state’s regional 

haze-forming emissions.’’ 

Response: Stationary sources do not 

contribute 80% of the state’s regional 

haze-forming emissions. The emissions 

inventory analysis in Chapter 2.3 of 

Oregon’s 2022 submission shows data 

from the EPA’s 2017 National Emission 

Inventory (NEI).87 Fuel combustion and 

process emissions associated with 

stationary sources account for 11% and 

6%, respectively, of Oregon’s PM10

emissions. Fuel combustion and process 

emissions account for 14% and 4%, 

respectively of NOX emissions, with 

mobile sources accounting for 79% of 

NOX emissions. Fuel combustion and 

process emissions account for 57% and 

13% of the 2017 SO2 emissions 

inventory. However, as noted by 

Oregon, ‘‘The 2017 SO2 inventory is 

largely overwhelmed by PGE 

Boardman’s coal-fired power plant in 

Morrow County. With the closing of the 

plant in October 2020, those emissions 

have largely been eliminated, and the 

remainder of the emissions come from 

fuel combustion and prescribed 

fires.’’ 88

The Environmental Organizations cite 

to Oregon’s August 27, 2021, Notice of 

Proposed Rulemaking as the basis for 

the statement that stationary sources 

contribute 80% of the state’s regional 

haze-forming emissions. However, the 

actual wording of the Notice of 

Proposed Rulemaking states, ‘‘Federally 

enforceable emission reductions and 

pollution controls at Title V stationary 

sources that collectively contribute 80% 

of Oregon regional haze-forming 

emissions from stationary sources.’’ 

(Emphasis added) 89 The Environmental 

Organizations’ adaptation of this quote 

omits the important qualifier ‘‘from 

stationary sources.’’ In intent and 

practice, ODEQ was referring to the 

EPA’s draft regional haze guidance that 

recommended states set a source 

screening level such that 80% of the 

stationary source emissions inventory 

was captured. This formed the basis of 

Oregon’s decision to set the source 

screening level at a quantity over 

distance (Q/d) = 5. This was not a 

statement that stationary sources 

contribute 80% the state’s regional hazeforming emissions. Based on the most 

recent 2023 National Emissions 

Inventory trends data,90 emissions 

categories associated with stationary 

sources contribute at most 18% of the 

cumulative anthropogenic PM10, NOX, 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 195 / Tuesday, October 8, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 81373 

91See 704_Oregon NEI data.xlsx and 705_

Original NEI source data.xlsx, included in the 

docket for this action. For the purpose of this 

analysis, we conservatively assumed that all fuel 

combustion was attributable to stationary sources, 

which likely overestimates the contribution from 

stationary sources. 

92See 702_staff report EQC meeting_072321_

ItemJ_RegionalHaze.pdf. 

and SO2 inventory.91 While up to 18% 

is still a meaningful percentage of the 

overall regional haze precursor 

inventory, there is no evidence to 

support the claim that stationary 

sources collectively contribute 80% of 

the state’s regional haze-forming 

emissions. 

2. Oregon’s Regional Haze Rule Is 

Inconsistent With the CAA 

Comment: The Environmental 

Organizations assert that Oregon’s 

Regional Haze Rule codified at OAR 

Chapter 340, Division 223 is 

inconsistent on its face with the CAA 

and 40 CFR 51.308(f). The 

Environmental Organizations make four 

arguments in support of this comment: 

(1) neither the CAA nor RHR allow 

Oregon to unilaterally grant itself broad 

authority to establish an alternative 

compliance process that operates 

outside the Federal regional haze 

framework; (2) Oregon’s rules would 

prevent the state from fulfilling its 

Federal Regional Haze obligations 

because they allow Oregon to provide a 

source with alternative compliance 

options that the state has not assessed 

through the four-factor analysis process; 

(3) Oregon’s rules do not require ODEQ 

to document the technical basis for its 

alternative compliance decisions; and 

(4) Oregon’s regional haze rule gives 

ODEQ the authority to reevaluate and 

reject controls deemed necessary for 

reasonable progress. 

Response: For the reasons stated 

below, we disagree with each of these 

comments. Before turning to each of the 

Environmental Organizations’ points, 

we note that these comments conflict 

with these same Organizations’ prior 

comments on Oregon’s Regional Haze 

Rule. Oregon’s Regional Haze Rule was 

adopted by the Oregon Environmental 

Quality Commission after a full public 

comment period from May 28, 2021, to 

June 30, 2021, and a hearing conducted 

on June 28, 2021.92 Earthjustice, on 

behalf of the Cully Air Action Team, 

Earthjustice, Friends of the Columbia 

Gorge, Green Energy Institute, Oregon 

Environmental Council, National Parks 

Conservation Association, Neighbors for 

Clean Air, Northwest Environmental 

Defense Center, and Verde submitted 

comments supportive of the rulemaking 

stating, ‘‘We write in support of DEQ’s 

proposed revisions to Oregon’s Regional 

Haze rules. The revised rules reflect a 

reasoned, well-grounded, and pragmatic 

plan for implementing the Clean Air 

Act’s visibility requirements. They will 

also benefit many communities in 

Oregon that are disproportionately 

burdened by pollution from emissions 

of PM, SO2, and NOX and communities 

that are most vulnerable to the most 

harmful effects of climate change. [The 

Clean Air Act requires] each state’s 

strategy must be based on an analysis of 

emission control measures that are 

necessary to make ‘‘reasonable 

progress’’ towards the goal of restoring 

natural visibility to Class I areas. The 

emissions-reducing strategies in DEQ’s 

revised Division 223 rules are consistent 

with EPA requirements for round II state 

implementation plans. The revised rules 

provide a strong foundation for Oregon’s 

long-term strategy for reducing 

anthropogenic pollutants that impair 

visibility.’’ 

Thus, the Environmental 

Organizations took full advantage of 

their opportunity to raise concerns with 

Oregon’s Regional Haze Rule during the 

state public comment process. At that 

time, the Organizations were highly 

supportive of the rule and gave ODEQ 

the clear impression that their rule was 

consistent with the CAA. The 

Environmental Organization do not 

address their stark change in position in 

their current comments on EPA’s 

proposal nor repudiate their prior 

position. This gives the impression that 

the Environmental Organizations are 

concerned with ODEQ’s application of 

Oregon’s Regional Haze Rule, rather 

than the rule itself. Nevertheless, we 

address each of the Environmental 

Organizations’ arguments against 

Oregon’s Regional Haze Rule. 

First, we disagree that Oregon’s 

Regional Haze Rule is disconnected 

from or inconsistent with the Federal 

Regional Haze Rule. Oregon adopted 

rules to implement the regional haze 

program at OAR Chapter 340, Division 

223. The Division includes sections on 

source screening, four-factor analysis, 

options for compliance, and final orders 

requiring compliance. The source 

screening section establishes which 

sources are subject to Oregon’s regional 

haze rules. Under the rule, all sources 

with a Title V operating permit and with 

a Q/d greater than or equal to 5 based 

on PSELs are subject to the regional 

haze rule. All sources subject to 

Oregon’s regional haze rule must submit 

a four-factor analysis to ODEQ in 

accordance with OAR 340–223–0110(1) 

that meets the requirements of OAR 

340–223–0120. The factors in OAR 340– 

223–0120 mirror those in the CAA 

section 169A(g)(1) and 40 CFR 

51.308(f)(2)(i). As discussed in section 

II.A of this preamble, under OAR 340– 

223–0120(2) and (3), ODEQ is 

authorized to adjust the four-factor 

analysis to account for inaccuracies or 

insufficient information, and for 

consistency purposes. The rule further 

authorizes ODEQ to determine which 

controls would be cost effective and the 

time period the controls can be 

implemented. 

The regulations at OAR 340–223– 

0110 lay out the administrative 

mechanisms for imposing regional haze 

controls. Under this section and OAR 

340–223–0130, ODEQ has the authority 

to order the source to install controls 

that ODEQ determines are cost effective 

on a timeline that ODEQ prescribes. 

Such orders are subject to appeal by the 

source. Alternatively, ODEQ may offer 

sources subject to the regional haze 

program the opportunity to enter into a 

SAFO. The rule provides five 

compliance options if ODEQ elects to 

enter into a SAFO: (1) lower PSELs to 

below Q/d equal to 5; (2) install controls 

identified by the source in a four factor 

analysis as cost effective for that source, 

provided ODEQ agrees that the controls 

will result in the greatest cost effective 

reductions; (3) install controls or reduce 

emissions that ODEQ determines, in its 

sole discretion, provide equivalent 

emissions reductions to controls that 

would be identified as cost effective for 

that source; (4) maintain controls that 

the source has already installed or 

maintain reduced emissions that ODEQ 

determines in its sole discretion have 

provided and will continue to provide 

equivalent reductions to controls that 

would be identified as cost effective for 

that source; and (5) replace emission 

unit with a new emission 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. 

Conceptually, nothing in the CAA nor 

the Federal Regional Haze Rule requires 

that states promulgate a regional-hazespecific state rule at all nor the form 

such a rule must take if a state elects to 

do so. Rather, the CAA and Regional 

Haze Rule provide states discretion on 

the manner in which they implement 

the regional haze program so long as the 

state’s long-term strategy includes the 

enforceable emissions limitations, 

compliance schedules, and other 

measures that are necessary to make 

reasonable progress as determined based 

on a consideration of the four statutory 

factors and the state documents the 

technical basis for its decisions on the 

controls necessary for reasonable 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES1
81374 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 195 / Tuesday, October 8, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

93 2019 Regional Haze Guidance at p. 29. 

94See 001_1.1_StaffReport_wAttachments.pdf at 

p. 19; 015_4.1.1 

SOS.Notice.FilingReceipt.8.27.21.pdf; Oregon 

Revised Statutes sections 183.310–183.690; OAR 

340–011–0009. 

95See 89 FR 13622 at 13629 (February 23, 2004). 

96Clarifications Memo at pp. 11–12. 

97See OAR 340–011–0010 and 0024; See also 40 

CFR 51.102. 

98See 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(iii). 

progress. As we discussed in the 

proposal and herein, Oregon’s SIP 

submissions demonstrate that the state 

has done so. 

Moreover, each of the compliance 

options in OAR 340–223–0110(2) are 

either part of Oregon’s source selection 

methodology or grounded in the fourfactor analysis required by OAR 340– 

223–0110(1) and 0120. Throughout their 

comments, the Environmental 

Organizations reflect concerns with the 

term ‘‘alternative compliance’’ used to 

describe the administrative mechanism 

in OAR 340–223–0110(2) for ODEQ to 

enter into a SAFO with a source rather 

than a unilateral order. We do not 

interpret this as an alternative to the 

requirements of the CAA or Regional 

Haze Rule. Rather, entering into a SAFO 

is an alternative administrative 

mechanism to imposing controls 

necessary for reasonable progress. Our 

review of the subsections of OAR 340– 

223–0110(2) shows they are consistent 

with the CAA and Regional Haze Rule. 

The option to lower PSELs is 

discussed at length in sections II.A and 

II.B.3 of this preamble. This option is 

part of Oregon’s method for selecting 

sources to undergo review and is 

consistent with the Regional Haze Rule. 

Each of the options in OAR 340–223– 

0110(2)(b)(B)–(D) make clear that ODEQ 

references the four-factor analysis as the 

basis to determine the acceptability of 

those options. For the option in OAR– 

340–223–0110(2)(b)(E) regarding 

emission unit replacement, ODEQ 

reasonably anticipated that sources 

would not evaluate unit replacement as 

a control option in a four-factor 

analysis,93 but that unit replacement 

may be more cost effective or provide 

significantly greater emissions 

reductions than certain add-on controls 

or emissions limitations in existing 

emission units. Therefore, contrary to 

the Environmental Organizations’ 

contention, these compliance options 

are grounded in the Regional Haze Rule. 

The Environmental Organizations 

appear to center their concerns on OAR 

340–223–0110(2)(b)(C) and (D), which 

allow ODEQ to issue a SAFO that 

requires the source to install or maintain 

controls that achieve, in ODEQ’s sole 

discretion, controls that provide 

equivalent emission reductions to 

controls that would be identified as cost 

effective for that source following the 

adjustment and review of the four-factor 

analysis. Oregon is subject to state 

administrative procedural requirements 

that require public review of the basis 

for its decisions.94 In addition, we 

interpret Oregon’s inclusion of the 

phrase ‘‘in its sole discretion’’ in OAR 

340–223–0110(2)(b)(C) and (D) as 

necessary to preserve the durability of 

its SAFOs. Under OAR 340–223– 

0110(2), ODEQ has discretion to offer 

sources the option to impose controls 

necessary for reasonable progress 

through a SAFO rather than a unilateral 

order. A benefit of the SAFO option is 

avoiding an appeal under OAR 340– 

223–0130. Given this, Oregon was 

reasonable in foreclosing the possibility 

of a source, after having signed a SAFO 

agreeing to install controls, challenging 

whether the agreed upon control was 

equivalent to the controls identified as 

cost effective under four-factor analysis. 

Finally, we do not interpret OAR 340– 

223–0110(2)(b) as overriding EPA’s 

authority under CAA Section 110 to 

determine whether the SIP submission 

meets CAA requirements nor the 

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

to document the basis for its decisions. 

As discussed in sections II.A.1, II.A.2, 

II.A.4, and II.B.5 of this preamble, in 

practice, ODEQ included in its SIP 

submission all of the correspondence 

that formed the basis for its 

determinations of what controls are 

necessary for reasonable progress. 

Second, with respect to the 

Environmental Organizations’ argument 

that Oregon’s regional haze rule 

prevents the state from fulfilling its 

regional haze obligations, ODEQ chose 

the compliance options in OAR 340– 

223–0110(2)(b) as the regulatory 

mechanism to effectuate its 

determinations of the controls necessary 

for reasonable progress based on the 

four factor analyses conducted under 

OAR 340–223–0120. As we stated in the 

proposed rulemaking for this action, 

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.95

Accordingly, Oregon’s regional haze 

rule requires ODEQ to make its 

equivalency determination based on the 

outcome of the four-factor analysis. 

Thus, we do not view Oregon’s rules as 

permitting ODEQ to determine the 

controls necessary for reasonable 

progress without considering the four 

statutory factors but rather recognizing 

that in practice a four-factor analysis 

may not always yield a single, obvious 

control determination. As discussed in 

section II.A of this preamble, in 

practice, ODEQ carefully considered the 

four factors in determining the controls 

necessary for reasonable progress and 

the appropriate regulatory mechanism 

under OAR 340–223–0110(2)(b). 

Practically, the goal of the regional 

haze program is to impose enforceable 

emission limits, where possible 

expressed as a numerical emission 

limit.96 Oregon’s rules allow it to 

impose such a limit without rigidly 

adhering to a specific control 

technology. Nothing in the CAA nor 

regional haze rule prohibits this 

approach to achieving reasonable 

progress. 

Third, regarding documentation 

requirements, we do not interpret OAR 

340–223–0110(2)(b) as circumventing 

ODEQ’s state administrative procedural 

requirements to include in its public 

record the basis for its regulatory 

decisions.97 OAR 340–223–0120 

requires ODEQ to include in its record 

the additional information it uses to 

adjust the initial four factor analysis. 

Moreover, Oregon is subject to the 

Regional Haze Rule requirement to 

include in it SIP submission 

documentation of the technical basis, 

including modeling, monitoring, cost, 

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.98 In 

recognition of this requirement, ODEQ 

supplemented its initial SIP submission 

with considerable documentation that 

informed the state’s determination of 

the controls necessary for reasonable 

progress. 

Finally, the EPA disagrees with the 

Environmental Organizations’ argument 

that Oregon’s regional haze rule allows 

the state to reevaluate and reject control 

measures deemed necessary for 

reasonable progress. This comment is 

predicated on the Environmental 

Organizations’ incorrect interpretation 

of ODEQ’s process for determining the 

controls necessary for reasonable 

progress. The Environmental 

Organizations presume that ODEQ’s 

preliminary control determinations 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 195 / Tuesday, October 8, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 81375 

99See 702_staff report EQC meeting_072321_

ItemJ_regionalhaze.pdf. 

100 2019 Guidance at page 17. 

101April 29, 2022 Oregon SIP submission, 

Chapter 3.7 Facility-specific findings and results. 

102See 142_haze-KingsfordManufCo.pdf included 

in the docket for this action. 

were its final control determinations. 

This is incorrect. See sections II.A, 

II.B.4, II.B.5 and II.B.6 of this preamble 

for EPA’s interpretation and explanation 

of ODEQ’s process. 

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 approves the submitted state 

regulations as meeting Federal 

requirements. 

3. Oregon’s Use of PSEL Reductions as 

a Source Selection Method 

Comment: The Environmental 

Organizations also commented that 

ODEQ’s application of Oregon’s regional 

haze rule was inconsistent with the 

CAA and the Regional Haze Rule. The 

Environmental Organizations took issue 

with ODEQ’s use of PSEL reductions 

stating: ‘‘DEQ used Oregon’s alternative 

compliance process to offer facilities 

that screened into the Regional Haze 

program an option to screen back out 

from the program by agreeing to 

measures that would reduce their plant 

site emission limits (‘‘PSEL’’) so that 

Q/d would be below 5.00. This resulted 

in only 23 of the 32 screened-in sources 

completing the required four-factor 

analyses and allowed four of those 23 

sources to belatedly screen back out 

from the program by reducing their 

PSELs so that Q/d is below 5.00.’’ 

Response: The regulatory provision 

cited by the Environmental 

Organizations is ODEQ’s application of 

Oregon Administrative Rules (OAR) 

340–223–0110(2)(b)(A) which allows a 

source to accept federally enforceable 

reductions of combined plant site 

emission limits (PSELs) of regional haze 

pollutants to bring the source’s Q/d 

below 5. As stated in section II.B.2 of 

this preamble, this regulatory provision 

was adopted by the Oregon 

Environmental Quality Commission 

after a full public comment period from 

May 28, 2021, to June 30, 2021, and a 

hearing conducted on June 28, 2021.99

The Environmental Organizations 

expressed support for Oregon’s Regional 

Haze Rule, including the PSEL 

reduction option at that time. We also 

note that the option to limit PSELs 

aligns with Oregon’s use of PSELs to 

initially select sources. Given that the 

state based initial source selection on 

PSELs (i.e. allowables), Oregon offered 

the option for sources to lower PSELs 

below the significance threshold to 

satisfy reasonable progress (prevention 

of future impairment) under the regional 

haze program. 

For the following reasons, we disagree 

with the Environmental Organizations’ 

comments with respect to ODEQ’s use 

of enforceable and permanent PSEL 

reductions as a means of refining 

source-screening or as a means of 

addressing reasonable progress for 

facilities with actual emissions below 

the screening threshold. As discussed in 

section II.A.3 of this preamble regarding 

similar comments submitted by the 

NPS, Oregon chose to use a more 

stringent methodology than the EPA’s 

2019 guidance for source screening and 

cost analysis based on allowable PSEL 

emissions rather than recent actual 

emissions or 2028 projected 

emissions.100 Oregon intended this as 

(1) a method of initially capturing a 

broad selection of sources potentially 

impacting visibility in Class I areas and 

(2) as an anti-backsliding measure to 

ensure that facilities which had a Q/d 

less than 5 based on 2017 actual 

emissions (and would otherwise not be 

screened into analysis) do not have 

future emissions growth (based on 

allowable PSEL emissions) that could 

jeopardize reasonable progress. 

Pursuant to OAR 340–223– 

0110(2)(b)(A), Oregon entered into 

SAFOs to reduce allowable PSEL 

emissions to align with 2017 actual 

emissions. None of the facilities listed 

in table 4 would have been screened 

into review based on 2017 actual 

emissions. 

TABLE 4—FACILITIES SCREENED IN USING 2017 PSEL Q/d 101

Facility 2017 

Actual Q/d 

2017 

PSEL Q/d Outcome 

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 ............. 4.02 14.81 Conducted FFA—then lowered PSEL to Q/d < 5.00. 

The Environmental Organizations 

provided no compelling basis to 

demonstrate that aligning allowable 

PSEL emissions with actual emissions 

was a violation of regional haze 

requirements, especially when 2017 

actual emissions are below the Q/d = 5 

screening threshold. 

For the two special cases where 2017 

actual emissions were above Q/d = 5, 

Kingsford Manufacturing and OwensBrockway, ODEQ had a reasoned basis 

for imposing permanent and enforceable 

emissions reductions such that the 

source’s Q/d is less than 5. In the case 

of Kingsford Manufacturing, the facility 

already had a 2019 permit modification 

lowering emissions below Q/d = 5 prior 

to the development of four-factor 

analyses.102 It was reasonable for ODEQ 

to consider this contemporaneous 2019 

emissions information in updating the 

agency’s source screening in 2020. The 

case of Owen-Brockway is more 

complex and described in our response 

to comment in sections II.A.3, II.A.15, 

and II.B.6 of this preamble. 

The Environmental Organizations 

focus on Boise Cascade Wood Products, 

LLC—Medford, Gas Transmission 

Northwest LLC—Compressor Station 12, 

JELD–WEN, and Northwest Pipeline 

LLC—Baker Compressor Station. These 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES1
81376 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 195 / Tuesday, October 8, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

103Under OAR 340–223–0120, ODEQ required 

calculation of cost-effectiveness based on PSEL. 

However, Gas Transmission Northwest LLC was 

one of several facilities to provide cost-effectiveness 

based on recent actuals or projected actuals. To the 

extent supplementary information was available for 

a facility, the EPA added it to our analyses and 

tables. 

104See 107_haze-BoiseCascade-Medford-FFA.pdf 

in the docket for this action. 

105See 122_haze-GasTransmissionNW-Station12- 

FFA.pdf in the docket for this action. 

106See 140_haze-JELD-WEN-FFA.pdf in the 

docket for this action. OAR 340–223–0120 required 

cost calculation based on PSEL. 

107See 144_haze-NorthwestPipeline-BakerFFA.pdf in the docket for this action. 

108See OAR 340–222–0010; 89 FR 22363, at page 

22367 (April 1, 2024). 

109See OAR 340–224–0025. 

110 Id. 

111See OAR 340–222–0055. 

112See 114 SAFO05- 

1849CascadesTissueGroup.pdf; 141a_Jeld wen 

permit mod_18-0006-TV-01-PM_2022_1.pdf; 151_

SAFOOwensBrockway0840001.pdf; OAR 340–224– 

0070, 0270. 

facilities all conducted four-factor 

analyses under OAR 340–223–0120 and 

then subsequently took a PSEL limit 

under OAR 340–223–0110(2)(b)(A). As 

we stated in section II.A of this 

preamble, Oregon determined that 

controls on sources with a Q/d of less 

than 5 based on PSELs are not necessary 

to make reasonable progress in the 

second planning period. The 

Environmental Organizations do not 

challenge this in their comments. 

Indeed, this is a particularly 

conservative source-selection method. 

Thus, Oregon was reasonable in not 

imposing controls based on a four-factor 

analysis for sources that have 

permanent and enforceable emissions 

limits such that their Q/d values are less 

than 5 based on PSELs. 

Moreover, as shown in table 5 of this 

preamble, there was only one control 

identified in the submitted four-factor 

analyses that was below the $10,000 

cost per ton reduced threshold when 

calculated using PSEL (SCR at Gas 

Transmission Northwest LLC— 

Compressor Station 12). However, when 

calculated using 2017 actual emissions 

or projected actual emissions, the cost 

per ton reduced of SCR increased to 

$32,071 and $15,386, respectively. 

Considering the EPA’s guidance that 

recommends the use of recent actuals or 

projected actuals in calculating costeffectiveness, it was reasonable for 

ODEQ to offer the facility a PSEL 

reduction under OAR 340–223– 

0110(2)(b)(A) to align with actual 

emissions, especially when 2017 actual 

emissions at the facility were so far 

below the screening threshold (Q/d = 

2.33). 

TABLE 5—COST-EFFECTIVENESS OF CONTROLS ($/TON NOX REDUCED) 103

Facility Control technology Calculated using 

2017 PSEL 

Calculated using 

recent actuals 

Calculated using 

projected actuals 

Boise Cascade Wood Products, LLC—Medford 104 SNCR ....................................... $10,196 ............................ ............................

SCR ......................................... 13,373 ............................ ............................

Gas Transmission Northwest LLC—Compressor 

Station 12 105

SCR (Unit A) ............................ 6,719 32,071 15,386 

SCR (Unit B) ............................ 11,449 51,869 26,514 

JELD–WEN 106 .......................................................... SCR—urea ............................... 19,969 ............................ ............................

SNCR—ammonia .................... 18,135 ............................ ............................

Northwest Pipeline LLC—Baker Compressor Station 107Low emission control (EU1) .... 25,850 ............................ ............................

Low emission control (EU2) .... 24,243 ............................ ............................

Finally, the lowering PSELs increases 

the likelihood that certain sources will 

be subject to NSR. ODEQ uses PSELs to 

manage emissions increases and 

decreases throughout the state to 

maintain the NAAQS and protect 

visibility.108 Accordingly, changes to 

PSELs trigger Oregon’s state and Federal 

new source review programs.109 The 

applicability trigger often hinges on the 

increase in emissions over the netting 

basis.110 The regulations also allow for 

deduction of certain unassigned 

emissions when determining whether 

an emission change requiring NSR 

occurs.111 In several cases, ODEQ 

ordered the reduction of PSELs, the 

zeroing out of unassigned emissions, 

and reduction of the netting basis.112

This increases the likelihood that the 

source will be subject to NSR and 

associated control technology review in 

the future. 

4. Oregon’s ‘‘Alternative Compliance’’ 

Pathways 

Comment: The Environmental 

Organizations asserted generally that 

ODEQ’s SAFOs were not outgrowths of 

ODEQ’s considerations of the four-factor 

analysis. In the introduction portion of 

their comments, the Environmental 

Organizations asserted: ‘‘And instead of 

ordering all 17 facilities that completed 

four-factor analyses to implement the 

reasonable progress controls identified 

through those analyses, DEQ chose to 

offer agreements to all but one of the 

facilities—enabling them to evade the 

regional haze process. These agreements 

allowed sources to accept alternative 

emission reduction measures that will 

achieve far fewer reductions in hazeforming emissions than the highly 

effective pollution controls that DEQ 

originally identified in its 2021 control 

letters. The emission reductions 

measures in the agreements were not 

vetted through the four-factor analysis 

process. DEQ entered into the 

agreements without analyzing, 

determining, or demonstrating that they 

would result in emissions reductions 

equivalent to those reductions that 

would have occurred had the sources 

been required to install the controls 

identified through four-factor analyses.’’ 

Response: The Environmental 

Organizations argue that all changes 

from the January 2021 preliminary 

control determination letters to the final 

August 2021 control determinations are 

attributable to considerations other than 

regional haze. The EPA acknowledges 

that ODEQ’s process was challenging to 

follow. However, in our review of the 

record, we have determined that ODEQ 

established these agreements within the 

framework of the Regional Haze Rule 

and the four statutory factors. 

Under OAR 340–223–0110(1) all 

affected facilities were required to 

submit four-factor analyses that comply 

with OAR 340–223–0120, which mirrors 

the Federal statutory requirement to 

consider the four statutory factors as 

outlined in CAA section 169A(g)(1) and 

40 CFR 51.308(f)(2). Except for OwensBrockway and Gilchrist Forest Products, 

twenty-one facilities provided fourfactor demonstrations asserting ‘‘no 

feasible, cost-effective’’ controls were 

available. In issuing the January 2021 

preliminary determination letters, 

ODEQ began the process of disputing 

the claims of ‘‘no feasible, costVerDate Sep<11>2014 16:13 Oct 07, 2024 Jkt 265001 PO 00000 Frm 00084 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\08OCR1.SGM 08OCR1

ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 195 / Tuesday, October 8, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 81377 

113 Documents 246 through 251 of the docket. 

114See appendices 1–6 of Oregon’s 2023 

supplement. 115 89 FR 13622 at 13629 (February 23, 2004). 

effective’’ controls in the four-factor 

analyses. As discussed in section II.A.2 

of this preamble, these letters were not 

four-factor analyses themselves or 

determinations of the controls necessary 

for reasonable progress under OAR 340– 

223–120(4) or 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2). 

Rather, a plain reading of the letters and 

documentation provided by ODEQ 

indicates these letters were interim 

steps in ODEQ’s refinement of the initial 

four-factor analyses. Given that ODEQ 

invited the recipients of the letters to 

discuss the preliminary findings with 

ODEQ, ODEQ clearly anticipated further 

refinements to the analyses. In this 

context, ODEQ appropriately initiated 

this interim process by asserting the 

most stringent measures that might be 

possible. 

Furthermore, the Environmental 

Organizations appear to ignore or 

mischaracterize the important 

correspondence included in appendices 

1 through 6 included in both the state’s 

docket for the 2023 regional haze 

supplement and the docket for the 

EPA’s proposed rulemaking.113 The 

initial four-factor analyses, ODEQ’s 

refinement and preliminary letters, and 

this supplemental information 

collectively formed the basis for ODEQ’s 

determination of the controls necessary 

for reasonable progress. Each of these 

steps in the process and associated 

documentation evince ODEQ’s 

consideration of the four statutory 

factors consistent with 40 CFR 

51.308(f)(2). 

The Environmental Organizations 

argue that because ODEQ’s 

determination of the controls necessary 

for reasonable progress differed in some 

cases from the preliminary 

determinations that its final 

determinations could not have been 

based on a consideration of the four 

statutory factors. The EPA disagrees. As 

detailed in our facility-specific 

responses to NPS’s comments, we have 

reviewed the correspondence and 

confirmed that ODEQ considered the 

four factors in making final control 

determinations. The supplemental 

correspondence indicates that ODEQ 

focused extensively on the technological 

feasibility of controls, cost of controls, 

and the time necessary for compliance. 

As discussed in our responses to NPS’s 

comments in section II.A. of this 

preamble, ODEQ not choosing BACTlevel controls or other controls 

advocated by the NPS and the 

Environmental Organizations does not 

mean that Oregon did not consider the 

four statutory factors. Section II.A of 

this preamble details our facilityspecific findings under the four factors. 

In each case, Oregon had a rational basis 

under the four factors in making final 

determinations. 

Comment: In the analysis section of 

their comments, the Environmental 

Organizations asserted: ‘‘Neither the 

Clean Air Act nor Regional Haze Rule 

allow EPA or Oregon to reject viable 

controls identified through a four-factor 

analysis and offer sources alternative 

compliance measures that have not been 

analyzed against the four statutory 

factors, and which will not yield 

equivalent emission reductions. EPA’s 

proposal to approve Oregon’s alternative 

compliance agreements violates the 

principle that state determinations 

concerning the selection and 

implementation of controls necessary to 

meet reasonable progress requirements 

must be ‘reasonably moored’ to the 

Clean Air Act, including the four factors 

listed in the statute.’’ 

Response: We agree with the general 

principle that a state’s reasonable 

progress determinations must be based 

on consideration of the four statutory 

factors. As we stated in the proposal, 40 

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

determine the emission reduction 

measures for sources that are necessary 

for reasonable progress by considering 

the four statutory factors. We disagree 

with the implication that Oregon did 

not do so. As we state in response to 

similar comments, the Environmental 

Organizations’ argument rests on the 

premise that ODEQ’s preliminary 

determination letters represented the 

culmination of the ODEQ’s 

consideration of the four statutory 

factors and foreclosed any further 

consideration of those factors. This is 

incorrect. 

ODEQ’s SIP submission makes clear 

that ODEQ concluded its consideration 

of the four factors subsequent to these 

letters, after the sources provided 

additional information regarding the 

availability of controls, cost of 

compliance, energy and non-air quality 

impacts of the controls, and time 

necessary to install the controls.114 The 

commenters do not explain how 

ODEQ’s consideration of the four factors 

prior to the preliminary determination 

letters is acceptable, but its 

consideration of the four factors after 

the letters is unacceptable. 

Our review of the information ODEQ 

included in the SIP submission 

indicates that ODEQ’s determinations of 

the controls necessary for reasonable 

progress, particularly where its final 

determinations differed from its 

preliminary determinations, reflect 

ODEQ’s careful consideration of 

technical feasibility and cost of 

controls—not an attempt to circumvent 

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

as the commenters suggest. The EPA 

recognized in the proposal that 

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.115

ODEQ’s process of considering the four 

factors and for determining the controls 

necessary for reasonable progress reflect 

the technical challenges associated with 

installing retrofit controls on diverse 

industrial processes. For each source, 

the EPA is satisfied that ODEQ has done 

so. 

Comment: The Environmental 

Organizations further asserted that 

ODEQ did not follow its own rules in 

entering into SAFOs. The 

Environmental Organizations asserted 

that ODEQ did not adequately 

determine whether the emissions 

reductions expected from each SAFO 

were equivalent to the emission 

reductions projected from the controls 

ODEQ preliminarily determined were 

cost effective in its letters to the sources. 

The Organizations stated: ‘‘But nothing 

in the record suggests that DEQ actually 

analyzed the emission reductions that 

would result from the alternative 

compliance agreements or compared 

them to the emission reductions that 

would result from installing controls 

identified through four-factor analyses. 

Many of the agreements contain several 

compliance options for the source that 

will not deliver equal emissions 

reductions. But rather than analyze the 

emissions expected from each of the 

compliance pathways, it appears that 

DEQ abandoned any effort to quantify 

the reductions expected from the 

agreements, stating in its response to 

comments that it did not have adequate 

information to allow it to determine 

equivalency with precision.’’ The 

Environmental Organizations further 

asserted that based on their own 

analysis, ODEQ’s SAFOs will achieve 

far less emission reductions than the 

controls ODEQ initially determined 

were cost effective in its preliminary 

control letters to sources. 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES1
81378 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 195 / Tuesday, October 8, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

116See 251b_Appendix6_

InternationalPaper.SpringfieldMill_

Correspondence.pdf, included in the docket for this 

action. 

117See 2023 regional haze supplement, at page 

19. 

118See 157_SAFO20210809RFPDillard.pdf, 

included in the docket for this action. 

119 Id. 

120Clarifications Memo at pp. 11–12. 

121See 110_haze-CascadePacificPulp-HalseyMillFFA.pdf in the docket for this action. 

122 Id, at page 2–14. 

Response: First, the Regional Haze 

Rule requires that the state determine 

the controls necessary for reasonable 

progress based on a consideration of the 

four statutory factors. As we explained 

in the Proposal and herein, Oregon’s 

submission clearly demonstrates that it 

considered the four statutory factors in 

determining the controls necessary for 

reasonable progress. 

Second, Oregon followed its own 

rules in determining the controls 

necessary for reasonable progress. As 

stated above, the EPA disagrees that the 

preliminary control determinations 

represented ODEQ’s final four factor 

analysis. Therefore, these preliminary 

determinations are not the correct 

barometer to measure whether an 

emission control will achieve equivalent 

emission reductions under OAR 340– 

223–0110(2)(C) or (D). 

A careful review of the SIP 

submission indicates that ODEQ 

invoked OAR 340–223–0110(2)(C) once 

in the case of the International Paper— 

Springfield Mill and OAR 340–223– 

0110(2)(D) once in the case of Roseburg 

Forest Products—Dillard. We discuss at 

length the appropriateness of ODEQ’s 

reasonable progress determination for 

the International Paper—Springfield 

Mill in section II.A of this preamble. As 

documented in appendix 6 of ODEQ’s 

2023 regional haze supplement, 

International Paper responded to 

ODEQ’s preliminary determination in a 

letter dated February 2, 2021, and a 

supporting memorandum dated March 

15, 2021.116 This information was cited 

in ODEQ’s 2023 supplement as the basis 

for revising the preliminary 

determination, ‘‘On February 2, 2021, IP 

Springfield submitted a letter in 

response to DEQ’s preliminary 

determination, explaining that the cost 

effectiveness of SCR installation was 

above the $10,000 per ton threshold for 

consideration.’’ 117 The Environmental 

Organizations provided no analysis or 

review of this follow-up correspondence 

to support the claim that ODEQ failed 

to ‘‘provide equivalent emissions 

reductions to controls that would be 

identified as cost effective for that 

source following the adjustment and 

review of a four-factor analysis.’’ SAFO 

208850, effective August 9, 2021, 

requiring PSEL reductions, installation 

of CEMS, and fuel restrictions is 

precisely what ODEQ identified as cost 

effective for that source following the 

adjustment and review of a four-factor 

analysis. 

With respect to Roseburg Forest 

Products, ODEQ did not issue a 

preliminary determination letter to the 

source, but indicated in its SIP 

submission that it initially approached 

the source with installation of SNCR on 

Boilers Nos. 1–3. The SIP submission 

indicates that the source and ODEQ 

then considered whether the Boiler Nos. 

1, 2 and 6 could achieve a similar 

emission reduction by optimizing 

operations of the boilers. This 

engagement culminated in a SAFO that 

imposes an emission limit of 0.27 lb. 

NOX/mmBTU (7-day rolling average) for 

Boiler No. 1 and 0.26 lb. NOX for Boiler 

Nos. 2 and 6 (7-day rolling average).118

The SAFO gave the facility the choice 

to achieve the emission limit either 

through installing SNCR or through 

boiler optimization.119 As discussed in 

section II.B.2 of this preamble, the goal 

of the regional haze program is to 

impose enforceable emission limits, 

where possible expressed as a numerical 

emission limit.120 Oregon’s rules allow 

it to impose such a limit without rigidly 

adhering to a specific control 

technology. Nothing in the CAA nor 

Regional Haze Rule prohibits such a 

pragmatic approach to achieving 

reasonable progress. 

5. Documentation of Oregon’s FourFactor Analysis Process 

Comment: ‘‘Additionally, the portion 

of Oregon’s SIP Revision that EPA 

points to as supporting EPA’s 

conclusion that Oregon adequately 

considered the four statutory factors 

does not contain any analysis of the 

alternative compliance measures. In this 

section of the SIP Revision, [O]DEQ 

merely explains that it sent sources 

control letters identifying cost-effective 

controls but later entered alternative 

compliance agreements without 

explaining its decision to include 

different and weaker controls in those 

agreements or how the agreements 

reflect the four statutory factors. For 

some sources, DEQ generally explains 

that the sources sent DEQ memoranda 

claiming that controls identified in the 

2021 control letters were not technically 

feasible or cost-effective but DEQ does 

not include those letters in the SIP 

Revision, preventing EPA and the 

public from reviewing the source 

analyses. Nothing in the record supports 

a finding that Oregon analyzed these 

alternative compliance measures based 

on the four statutory factors.’’ 

Response: Section 5 of Oregon’s 2023 

regional haze supplement was added to 

explain changes from the January 2021 

‘‘Preliminary Determination of Cost 

Effective Controls for Regional Haze’’ 

letters (preliminary determinations) to 

the final four-factor determinations 

imposed by the August 2021 SAFOs. 

The 2023 supplement also contained 

appendices 1 through 6 that included 

the four-factor analyses submitted 

pursuant to OAR 340–223–0110(1), 

ODEQ’s January 2021 ‘‘Preliminary 

Determination of Cost Effective Controls 

for Regional Haze’’ letters, and the 

correspondence from facilities in 

response to the preliminary 

determinations. As discussed in our 

facility-specific responses to NPS 

comments, our review showed that 

ODEQ’s consideration of the 

correspondence in appendices 1 

through 6 was grounded in the four 

factors in CAA section 169A(g)(1) and 

40 CFR 51.308(f)(2) in making final 

control determinations. 

Contrary to the commenters’ 

assertions, the documentation provided 

in Oregon’s SIP submissions provide 

important context for understanding the 

Oregon process in comparing the final 

control determinations imposed by the 

August 2021 SAFOs to the four-factor 

analyses submitted to pursuant to OAR 

340–223–0110(1). Except for Gilchrist 

Forest Products and Owens-Brockway, 

all four-factor analyses developed by 

environmental consulting firms and/or 

professional engineers on behalf of the 

sources determined that no feasible, 

cost-effective controls were available, or 

that further site-specific engineering 

analysis would be necessary. Examples 

are the June 2020 four-factor analyses 

for the Cascade Pacific Pulp—Halsey, 

Georgia-Pacific—Wauna, GeorgiaPacific—Toledo, and International 

Paper—Springfield facilities.121 Chapter 

2.3.1 Site-Specific Factors Limiting 

Implementation of the four-factor 

analysis states, ‘‘Currently known, sitespecific factors that would limit the 

feasibility and increase the cost of 

installing additional controls include 

space constraints. A detailed 

engineering study for each of the 

controls evaluated in this report would 

be necessary before any additional 

controls were determined to be feasible 

or cost effective.’’ 122 As documented in 

appendices 1–6 of the 2023 regional 

haze supplement, it was precisely these 

types of technical feasibility and cost 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 195 / Tuesday, October 8, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 81379 

123See document numbers 246 to 251 in the 

docket for this action. 

124See 149_haze-Owens-Brockway-FFA.pdf, 

included in the docket for this action. 

125See 150_haze-Owens-Brockway.pdf, included 

in the docket for this action. 

126See https://www.oregon.gov/deq/programs/ 

pages/owensbrockway.aspx. 

127See 151_SAFOOwensBrockway0840001.pdf, 

included in the docket for this action. 

128See 701_OwensBrockway2020-208MAO.pdf, 

included in the docket for this action. 

129 ‘‘Current status: In April and May 2023, DEQ 

held a public comment period and public hearing 

for Owens-Brockway’s draft Title V air quality 

permit. Following comments from EPA, DEQ is in 

the process of revising this permit and will hold 

another public comment period in the first quarter 

of 2024.’’ Source: https://www.oregon.gov/deq/ 

programs/pages/owensbrockway.aspx. 

130See 89 FR 13622 (February 23, 2024) at page 

13646. 

131See International Marine Organization. 2020. 

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

localresources/en/MediaCentre/HotTopics/

Documents/Sulphur%202020%20

infographic%202%20page.pdf. 

concerns that ODEQ considered both 

before and after issuing the agency’s 

preliminary determinations in 

determining the controls necessary for 

reasonable progress.123

6. Owens-Brockway Glass Container Inc. 

Comment: The Environmental 

Organizations referenced ODEQ’s 

evaluation of the four-factor analysis 

and SAFO for the Owens-Brockway 

Glass Container facility in support of its 

argument that ODEQ’s alternative 

compliance mechanisms are not 

reasonably moored to the four statutory 

factors. The Organizations stated: ‘‘In 

the case of Owens-Brockway, for 

example, describing DEQ’s alternative 

compliance agreement simply as an 

‘‘agreed order to impose additional 

controls’’ is an especially large 

distortion of what Oregon did. An order 

that tracked the four-factor analysis for 

Owens-Brockway would have required 

the installation of ceramic catalytic 

filters on its furnaces that would have 

reduced the facility’s NOX and SO2

emissions by 90% and PM10 emissions 

by 99%. Community members had long 

been advocating for this kind of 

pollution control and the much-needed 

reductions in pollution in an already 

overburdened neighborhood that 

ceramic catalytic filters would have 

delivered. But rather than order OwensBrockway to install the filters, DEQ and 

Owens-Brockway entered into an 

‘‘alternative compliance’’ agreement that 

consisted of reduced permit limits and 

a reiteration of a previous DEQ order to 

retire Furnace A, which DEQ had 

imposed on the facility earlier through 

an enforcement action. Because the 

permit limits that were reduced in the 

agreement had been set at a level that 

covered two furnaces (one of which was 

no longer operating), and because 

Owens-Brockway had already been 

ordered to stop operating one of the 

furnaces, Owens-Brockway’s 

‘‘alternative compliance’’ agreement 

will not have an impact on the actual 

emissions from the facility.’’ 

Response: In a four-factor analysis 

dated June 12, 2020, Owens-Brockway 

Glass Container Inc. (Owens-Brockway) 

was one of the few facilities in Oregon 

determining technically feasible, costeffective controls were available under 

the regional haze program.124 On 

October 27, 2020, ODEQ concurred with 

Owens-Brockway’s findings that 

combined control of NOX, SO2 and PM 

by catalytic ceramic filters is costfeasible for glass-melting furnaces A & 

D.125 Subsequently, in 2021, ODEQ 

initiated an enforcement action at 

Owens-Brockway to address 

exceedances of the total particulate 

matter and opacity limits in the source’s 

operating permit impacting human 

health.126 While the enforcement action 

was pending, ODEQ initiated and 

completed its public comment process 

for its Regional Haze SIP (completed 

August 27, 2021). ODEQ elected not to 

impose the catalytic ceramic filter 

requirement through a regional haze 

unilateral order or SAFO because it did 

not want to circumvent its enforcement 

process for the permit exceedances. 

Therefore, Oregon limited the scope of 

the regional haze order (SAFO 26–1876) 

to permanently enshrine the shutdown 

of furnace A (which had not operated 

since June 8, 2020) and lower the PSEL 

to capture this reduction in 

emissions.127 The lowered PSELs 

resulted in a Q/d of less than 5.0, below 

Oregon’s regional haze rule applicability 

threshold. 

Ultimately, ODEQ’s enforcement 

action resulted in order AQ/V–NWR– 

2020–208 (effective October 22, 2021) 

which required Owens-Brockway to 

either shutdown furnace D or install 

catalytic ceramic filtration on furnace 

D.128 The Environmental Organizations 

downplay the significance of the 

enforcement response and ongoing 

permit modification to impose catalytic 

ceramic filtration on furnace D.129 Given 

the circumstances, ODEQ was 

reasonable in calibrating its regional 

haze SAFO to reduce PSELs, while 

deferring the human-health driven relief 

to its enforcement response. ODEQ’s 

prudence is evidenced by the fact that 

it achieved both PSEL reductions and 

the installation of catalytic ceramic 

filters on furnace D by leveraging both 

authorities. 

7. Reasonable Progress Goals 

Comment: ‘‘EPA wrongfully proposes 

to find that Oregon’s SIP Revision 

satisfies the Regional Haze Rule’s 

requirements for reasonable progress 

goals. In its proposal, EPA 

acknowledges that Oregon’s reasonable 

progress goals are based on ‘‘modeling 

which represents regulations on the 

books as of 2020 plus stationary source 

controls recommended from DEQ’s 

review of the four-factor analyses 

submittals.’’ This confirms that the 

reasonable progress goals are based on 

Oregon’s 2021 control letters, not the 

weaker controls in the alternative 

compliance agreements that were 

ultimately incorporated into the longterm strategy. EPA therefore cannot 

claim that Oregon satisfied the 

reasonable progress goal requirements. 

As discussed above and in our 

comments submitted to DEQ, the 

alternative compliance agreements will 

achieve far fewer reductions in 

visibility-impairing pollution than the 

controls identified in the 2021 control 

letters. As a result, Oregon’s reasonable 

progress goals are not reflective of the 

visibility improvements that the longterm strategy controls will achieve, in 

violation of the Regional Haze Rule.’’ 

Response: We disagree with this 

comment. Oregon’s reasonable progress 

goals meet the requirements of 40 CFR 

51.308(f)(3). We note initially that 

Oregon has made significant progress 

reducing regional haze, as shown in 

table 6 of this preamble. In section IV.F 

of our proposed rulemaking we 

addressed the reasonable progress goals 

(RPG). We described the major factors 

that will continue to reduce regional 

haze precursor emissions during the 

2018–2028 implementation period. We 

highlighted Oregon’s mobile source 

regulations, because mobile sources 

account for approximately 80% of the 

statewide NOX emissions inventory.130

We also highlighted the impact of 

international marine shipping and how 

these emissions (SO2) are projected to 

decrease by 77% due to new standards 

for international marine shipping fuels 

which became effective in 2020.131 With 

respect to stationary sources we 

acknowledged the significant SO2

reductions from the closure of 

Boardman facility (the only coal-fired 

electric generating unit in the state). 

Like other western states, Oregon 

used modeling from the Western 

Regional Air Partnership (WRAP) to 

conduct RPG modeling. This included 

‘Future Year 2028 with On the Books 

Controls’’ which forecasted expected 

reductions from the Boardman facility 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES1
81380 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 195 / Tuesday, October 8, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

132See 89 FR 13622 (February 23, 2024) at page 

13646. 

133See https://views.cira.colostate.edu/tssv2/. 

Note: EPA used the WRAP preset ‘‘2028OTBa2 EPA 

w/o Fire Projection—MID’’ for on the books 

measures and ‘‘PAC2 EPA w/o Fire Projection— 

MID’’ for the on the books plus additional measures 

calculation, which differs slightly from the RPGs 

reported by Oregon and listed in our proposed 

rulemaking. 

134See https://views.cira.colostate.edu/tssv2/. 

135See 708_OR_RPG_Chart_Data.xlsx included in 

the docket for this action. 

136Availability of Modeling Data and Associated 

Technical Support Document for the EPA’s 

Updated 2028 Visibility Air Quality Modeling, 

September 2019. 

137See April 22, 2022 Oregon regional haze SIP 

at page 17. 

as well as anticipated mobile source 

reductions. The WRAP also modeled 

‘‘Future Year 2028 with Potential 

Additional Controls.’’ Due to time 

constraints in analyzing and assessing 

final four-factor determinations, these 

RPG calculations were based on ODEQ’s 

January 2021 preliminary 

determinations. However, as noted in 

our proposed rulemaking we explained 

that in considering the dominance of the 

mobile source and international marine 

shipping emissions source categories on 

the overall inventory, it is unlikely that 

differences in the stationary source 

controls selected by Oregon would 

significantly impact the projected RPG 

modeling for the monitoring stations 

associated with the respective Class I 

areas.132 This is borne out by the data 

in table 6, drawn from publicly 

available information.133 The average 

difference between the ‘‘Future Year 

2028 with On the Books Controls’’ and 

the ‘‘Future Year 2028 with Potential 

Additional Controls’’ RPG projections is 

0.03 deciview for the six Oregon 

regional haze monitoring sites. The 

claim that RPGs will be significantly 

divergent because of the difference 

between the January 2021 preliminary 

determinations and the August 2021 

final four-factor determinations does not 

consider the overall emission source 

mix, particularly for NOx which is 

dominated by mobile source emissions 

that are driving the significant 

reductions predicted between 2018 and 

2028 (approximately 80% of the 2017 

inventory). Therefore, we do not believe 

there is adequate basis to disapprove 

Oregon’s use of the January 2021 

preliminary determinations in 

projecting RPG because the August 2021 

final determinations were not yet 

available when WRAP conducted its 

modeling. 

TABLE 6—REASONABLE PROGRESS GOALS (IN DECIVIEWS) 

Class I area Baseline 

2000–2004 

Current 

conditions 

2014–2018 

WRAP 2028 

on the books 

WRAP 2028 

on the books 

plus additional 

controls 

Unadjusted 

2028 glidepath 

20% most 

impaired days 

Mt. Hood Wilderness Area ................................................... 12.10 9.27 8.49 8.44 9.90 

Mt. Jefferson, Mt. Washington, and Three Sisters Wilderness Areas ....................................................................... 12.80 11.28 10.73 10.70 10.60 

Crater Lake National Park; Diamond Peak, Mountain 

Lakes, and Gearhart Mountain Wilderness Areas ........... 9.36 7.98 7.62 7.60 7.70 

Kalmiopsis Wilderness Area ................................................ 13.34 11.97 11.43 11.40 11.13 

Strawberry Mountain and Eagle Cap Wilderness Areas ..... 14.53 11.19 10.36 10.35 11.35 

Hells Canyon Wilderness Area ............................................ 16.51 12.33 11.25 11.19 12.53 

8. Robust Demonstration Requirements 

Comment: ‘‘EPA’s claim that Oregon 

satisfied the ‘‘robust demonstration’’ 

requirement is also incorrect. EPA 

explains that the reasonable progress 

goals for eight of Oregon’s 12 Class I 

areas are projected to be above their 

2028 unadjusted uniform rate of 

progress glidepath, triggering the 

Regional Haze Rule’s ‘‘robust 

demonstration’’ requirement. EPA’s 

conclusion that Oregon satisfied this 

requirement for the same flawed reasons 

it satisfied its long-term strategy 

requirements fails for two reasons. First, 

because Oregon’s reasonable progress 

goals are based on incorrect 

assumptions about the emissionsreducing control measures that 

screened-in sources would install, the 

reasonable progress goals for these Class 

I areas are likely even further above the 

2028 uniform rate of progress than the 

SIP Revision reflects. And there is 

nothing in the record to demonstrate 

that the alternative compliance 

measures Oregon offered to sources 

would provide emission reductions that 

are equivalent to the controls identified 

in the 2021 letters. 

Second, there are readily available, 

feasible, and cost-effective controls for 

multiple sources that Oregon failed to 

include in the SIP Revision as necessary 

to make reasonable progress—namely, 

those identified in the 2021 control 

letters that were not included in the 

alternative compliance agreements. As 

long as there are other feasible and costeffective controls available that are not 

included in the SIP Revision, Oregon 

cannot satisfy its robust demonstration 

requirement.’’ 

Response: We disagree with this 

comment. According to WRAP 

modeling data 134 analyzed by the EPA, 

4 of the 6 Oregon regional haze 

monitoring sites have ‘‘Future Year 2028 

with On the Books Controls’’ with 

projections below the 2028 uniform rate 

of progress as shown in table 6.135 These 

are the emissions reductions that are 

already predicted to occur, primarily 

due to the closure of the Boardman 

facility and Oregon’s aggressive mobile 

source regulations. These projections do 

not include the controls listed in 

Oregon’s January 2021 ‘‘Preliminary 

Determination of Cost Effective Controls 

for Regional Haze’’ letters. The two 

remaining monitors, THSI (representing 

Mt. Jefferson, Mt. Washington, and 

Three Sisters Wilderness Areas) and 

KALM (representing the Kalmiopsis 

Wilderness Area), have ‘‘Future Year 

2028 with On the Books Controls’’ 

projections marginally above the 2028 

unadjusted glidepath but well below the 

EPA’s 2028 default adjusted glidepath to 

account for international emissions.136

As noted by the Environmental 

Organizations, Oregon chose not to 

adjust the glidepath to account for 

international contribution. However, as 

we discussed in the proposal, it is 

reasonable for the EPA to consider our 

own modeling information in evaluating 

the Oregon SIP. The EPA’s modeling 

data appears to corroborate Oregon’s 

assessment that these monitors are 

significantly impacted by amonium 

sulfate from international marine 

shipping.137 This assessment is further 

corroborated by the EPA’s review of 

Chapter 2.4 Pollutant Components of 

Visibility Impairment, of Oregon’s 2022 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 195 / Tuesday, October 8, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 81381 

138See EPA Legal Tools to Advance 

Environmental Justice, May 2022, available at 

www.epa.gov/system/files/documents/2022-05/ 

EJ%20Legal%20Tools

%20May%202022%20FINAL.pdf at 35–36. 

139April 2022 Regional Haze SIP submission, 

pages 50–56. 

140 Id, at page 57. 

SIP submission. These graphs highlight 

the stark difference in ammonium 

sulfate contribution between regional 

haze monitors in eastern Oregon 

compared to southern coastal and 

central Oregon monitors more likely to 

be impacted by international marine 

shipping. The only stationary source 

with significant SO2 emissions was the 

now closed Boardman facility; however, 

this facility was located far to the 

northeast and is unlikely to have 

impacted the two affected monitors 

along the southeastern Oregon coast and 

central cascades region. This lends 

further credence to Oregon’s 

determination that these monitors were 

impacted by international marine 

shipping. 

EPA included this data assessment in 

the proposal. The commenters did not 

demonstrate that EPA’s assessment of 

the data is flawed. Rather, the 

commenters assume without supporting 

data the RPGs ought to be higher 

because Oregon’s long-term strategy 

(LTS) does not include all the controls 

initially included in the model used to 

set the RPGs. However, the EPA’s 

assessment refutes this assumption. Onthe-books controls and international 

shipping are the dominant drivers for 

Oregon’s reasonable progress goals. 

Given this, Oregon’s RPGs reflect the 

visibility conditions that are projected 

to be achieved by the end of 2028 as 

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

With respect to the Environmental 

Organizations’ broader statement that 

Oregon did not meet the robust 

demonstration requirements because 

‘‘other feasible and cost-effective 

controls available that are not included 

in the SIP Revision,’’ we disagree. 

Attachment A of the Environmental 

Organizations’ comments includes a 

comparison of the proposed controls in 

ODEQ’s January 2021 ‘‘Preliminary 

Determination of Cost Effective Controls 

for Regional Haze’’ letters to the final 

control determinations as proof that 

feasible cost-effective controls were 

available. We do not agree with this 

argument for two reasons. 

First, as described in sections II.B.4 

and II.B.5 of this preamble, the 

preliminary control determination 

letters are not four-factor analyses. The 

four-factor analyses are the documents 

submitted pursuant to OAR 340–223– 

0110(1) which ODEQ reviewed and 

analyzed under OAR 340–223–0120, 

both before and after January 2021 in 

making final four-factor determinations. 

Second, and more importantly, in 

section 5 of Oregon’s 2023 supplement, 

ODEQ provided a summary of the 

rationale the agency used in making 

final control determinations based on 

ODEQ’s review the four-factor analyses 

and all relevant correspondence with 

the facilities regarding the four-factor 

analyses (appendices 1 through 6). This 

information was added to the 2023 

supplement specifically to address 

concerns voiced by NPS and 

Environmental Organizations that the 

2022 regional haze SIP did not contain 

adequate information to explain the 

difference between the preliminary 

determinations and ODEQ’s final 

control determinations. Neither the 

Environmental Organizations’ 

comments, nor the attachments, cite to, 

reference, or analyse this critical 

information. Therefore, we do not see a 

basis to claim that other feasible and 

cost-effective controls were available 

when there is no record to suggest the 

Environmental Organizations 

considered the correspondence 

regarding the final four-factor 

determinations. 

9. Environmental Justice 

Comment: The Environmental 

Organizations submitted lengthy 

comments regarding environmental 

justice, which are available in the 

docket for this action. In summary, the 

Environmental Organizations 

commented that (1) EPA is required 

under Executive Orders and EPA’s own 

commitments to consider environmental 

justice and (2) EPA ignores the 

environmental justice impacts of 

Oregon’s Regional Haze SIPs. 

Response: The regional haze statutory 

provisions do not explicitly address 

considerations of environmental justice, 

and neither do the regulatory 

requirements of the second planning 

period in 40 CFR 51.308(f), (g), and (i). 

However, the lack of explicit direction 

does not preclude the State from 

addressing EJ in the State’s SIP 

submission. As explained in ‘‘EPA Legal 

Tools to Advance Environmental 

Justice,’’ 138 the CAA provides states 

with the discretion to consider 

environmental justice in developing 

rules and measures related to regional 

haze. 

In this instance Oregon included an 

entire chapter, 3.6.1 Environmental 

Justice Analysis, ‘‘[t]o better understand 

the potential co-benefits of pollutant 

controls, DEQ undertook an 

environmental justice analysis of 

communities surrounding the facilities 

that DEQ’s Regional Haze decisions will 

affect.’’ 139 This chapter provided 

additional information from EJ Screen to 

calculate a ‘‘Vulnerable Populations 

Score’’ and a ‘‘Environmental Justice 

Score Methodology for Oregon’’ which 

helped inform the overall weight of 

evidence approach which led ODEQ to 

conclude, ‘‘that controls are both 

environmentally beneficial and cost 

effective at many facilities evaluated by 

DEQ.’’ 140

III. Final Action 

For the reasons stated in our proposed 

action (89 FR 13622, February 23, 2024) 

and in section II. of this preamble, we 

are approving 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. 

The EPA is approving and 

incorporating by reference in 40 CFR 

52.1970(c), Table 2—EPA Approved 

Oregon Administrative Rules (OAR) the 

following updates to Division 223 

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 removing from incorporation 

by reference in 40 CFR 52.1970(c), Table 

2—EPA Approved Oregon 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES1
81382 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 195 / Tuesday, October 8, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

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, and 340– 

223–0080, state-effective December 10, 

2010, because the site-specific 

requirements contained in those 

revoked sections are no longer relevant. 

In addition to the regulatory 

provisions, the EPA is approving and 

incorporating by reference in 40 CFR 

52.1970(d), EPA Approved Oregon 

Source-Specific Requirements the 

following source-specific requirements 

as part of Oregon’s long-term strategy for 

regional haze: 

• Ash Grove Cement Company, 

Permit No. 01–0029–TV–01, state 

effective October 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, state effective August 9, 2021. 

• Boise Cascade Wood Products, 

LLC—Elgin Complex, Order No. 31– 

0006, state effective August 12, 2021. 

• Boise Cascade Wood Products, 

LLC—Elgin Complex, Permit No. 31– 

0006–TV–01, state effective December 5, 

2016, permit condition (56), (59) 

through (75), (77), and (78) only. 

• Boise Cascade Wood Products, 

LLC—Medford, Order No. 15–0004, 

state effective August 9, 2021. 

• Boise Cascade Wood Products, 

LLC—Medford, Permit No. 15–0004– 

TV–01, state effective February 20, 

2020, permit conditions (71), (72), and 

(74) through (88) only. 

• Cascade Pacific Pulp, LLC—Halsey 

Pulp Mill, Order No. 22–3501–A2, state 

effective August 25, 2023. 

• Cascades Tissue Group: A Division 

of Cascades Holding US Inc., Order No. 

05–1849, state effective August 18, 

2021. 

• Cascades Tissue Group: A Division 

of Cascades Holding US Inc., Permit No. 

05–1849–TV–01, state effective April 6, 

2018, permit conditions (24), (25), (27), 

and (29) through (43) only. 

• Collins Products, L.L.C., Permit No. 

18–0013–TV–01, state effective January 

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, state 

effective September 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, 

state effective August 9, 2021. 

• Gas Transmission Northwest LLC— 

Compressor Station 12, Order No. 09– 

0084, state effective August 9, 2021. 

• Gas Transmission Northwest LLC— 

Compressor Station 12, Permit No. 09– 

0084–TV–01, state effective August 10, 

2017, permit conditions (32) through 

(34) and (37) through (50) only. 

• Gas Transmission Northwest LLC— 

Compressor Station 13, Order No. OAH 

CASE NO. 2021–ABC–04835/DEQ 

CASE NO. AQ/RH–HQ–2021–140, state 

effective June 1, 2022. 

• Gas Transmission Northwest LLC— 

Compressor Station 13, Permit No. 18– 

0096–TV–01, state effective July 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, state effective December 5, 2022. 

• Georgia Pacific—Wauna Mill, Order 

No. 04–0004, Amendment No. 04–004– 

A1, state effective December 5, 2022. 

• Gilchrist Forest Products, Permit 

No. 18–0005–TV–01, state effective July 

25, 2023, permit conditions (4), (5), (9), 

(10), (12) though (19), (41) through (43), 

(45) through (59), and (61) only. 

• International Paper—Springfield, 

Order No. 208850, state August 9, 2021. 

• International Paper—Springfield, 

Permit No. 208850, state effective 

October 4, 2016, permit conditions (186) 

through (189), (192), and (198) only. 

• JELD–WEN, Permit No. 18–0006– 

TV–01, state effective December 01, 

2021, permit conditions (55) through 

(77) and (80) through (87) only. 

• JELD–WEN, Permit No. 18–0006– 

TV–01, Addendum No, 1, state effective 

8/11/2022, permit conditions 53 and 

53b only. 

• Kingsford Manufacturing Company, 

Permit No. 204402, addendum No. 2, 

state effective November 15, 2021, 

permit conditions (71) through (73) and 

(75) through (91) only. 

• Klamath Energy LLC—Klamath 

Cogeneration, Permit No. 18–0003–TV– 

01, state effective June 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, state effective 

December 8, 2020, permit conditions 

(3.a), (3.b), (61.l), and (66.b.xii). 

• Northwest Pipeline LLC—Baker 

Compressor Station, Order No. 01–0038, 

amendment 01–0038–A1, state effective 

February 1, 2022. 

• Northwest Pipeline LLC—Baker 

Compressor Station, Permit No. 01– 

0038–TV–01, state effective January 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, state 

effective February 1, 2022. 

• Northwest Pipeline LLC—Oregon 

City Compressor Station, Permit No. 03– 

2729–TV–01, state effective February 

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, state effective June 

25, 2019, permit conditions (1.1) 

through (1.3), (1.6), (2.1) through (2.5), 

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

(6.2). 

• Owens-Brockway Glass Container 

Inc., Order No. 26–1876, state effective 

8/9/2021. 

• Owens-Brockway Glass Container 

Inc., Permit No. 26–1876–TV–01, state 

effective December 10, 2019, permit 

conditions (33) through (48) only. 

• Pacific Wood Laminates, Inc., 

Permit No. 08–0003–TV–01, state 

effective December 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, state effective 

August 10, 2021. 

• PGE Beaver Plant/Port Westward I 

Plant, Permit No. 05–2520, state 

effective January 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, state effective 

August 9, 2021. 

• Roseburg Forest Products—Medford 

MDF, Permit No. 15–0073–TV–01, state 

effective August 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, 

state effective July 31, 2019, permit 

conditions (65), (66), (68) through (81) 

only. 

• Swanson Group Mfg. LLC, Permit 

No. 10–0045–TV–01, state effective June 

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, state effective June 23, 2022, permit 

conditions (70) through (72) and (74) 

through (90) only. 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 195 / Tuesday, October 8, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 81383 

141 62 FR 27968 (May 22, 1997). 

• Willamette Falls Paper Company, 

Order No. 03–2145, state effective 

August 9, 2021. 

• Willamette Falls Paper Company, 

Permit No. 03–2145–TV–01, state 

effective February 24, 2016, permit 

conditions (40) through (55) only. 

• Woodgrain Millwork LLC— 

Particleboard, Permit No. 31–0002–TV– 

01, state effective May 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. 

IV. Incorporation by Reference 

In this document, the EPA is 

finalizing regulatory text that includes 

incorporation by reference. In 

accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 

51.5, we are finalizing the incorporation 

by reference of the Oregon regulatory 

and source-specific provisions 

described in section III. of this preamble 

and set forth in the amendments to 40 

CFR part 52 in this document. 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). 

Therefore, these materials have been 

approved by the EPA for inclusion in 

the SIP, have been incorporated by 

reference by the EPA into that plan, are 

fully federally enforceable under 

sections 110 and 113 of the Clean Air 

Act as of the effective date of the final 

rule of the EPA’s approval, and will be 

incorporated by reference in the next 

update to the SIP compilation.141

Also in this document, the EPA is 

removing regulatory text from 

incorporated by reference, as described 

in section III. of this preamble. 

V. 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 approves state law as 

meeting Federal requirements and does 

not impose additional requirements 

beyond those imposed by state law. For 

that reason, this 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. 

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 communities with 

environmental justice (EJ) concerns to 

the greatest extent practicable and 

permitted by law. The EPA defines 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 communities 

with EJ concerns. 

In addition, the SIP is not 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 rule does not have 

Tribal implications and it will not 

impose substantial direct costs on Tribal 

governments or preempt Tribal law as 

specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 

FR 67249, November 9, 2000). 

This action is subject to the 

Congressional Review Act, and the EPA 

will submit a rule report to each House 

of the Congress and to the Comptroller 

General of the United States. This action 

is not a ‘‘major rule’’ as defined by 5 

U.S.C. 804(2). 

Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean 

Air Act, petitions for judicial review of 

this action must be filed in the United 

States Court of Appeals for the 

appropriate circuit by December 9, 

2024. Filing a petition for 

reconsideration by the Administrator of 

this final rule does not affect the finality 

of this action for the purposes of judicial 

review nor does it extend the time 

within which a petition for judicial 

review may be filed and shall not 

postpone the effectiveness of such rule 

or action. This action may not be 

challenged later in proceedings to 

enforce its requirements. See section 

307(b)(2). 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Carbon monoxide, 

Incorporation by reference, 

Intergovernmental relations, Lead, 

Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate 

matter, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile 

organic compounds. 

Dated: September 26, 2024. 

Casey Sixkiller, 

Regional Administrator, Region 10. 

For the reasons set forth in the 

preamble, EPA amends 40 CFR part 52 

as follows: 

PART 52—APPROVAL AND 

PROMULGATION OF 

IMPLEMENTATION PLANS 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 52 

continues to read as follows: 

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


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES1
81384 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 195 / Tuesday, October 8, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

Subpart MM—Oregon 

■ 2. In § 52.1970: 

■ a. Amend paragraph (c) table 2 by 

revising the entries under the heading 

‘‘Division 223—Regional Haze Rules’’; 

■ b. Revise and republish paragraph (d); 

and 

■ c. Amend paragraph (e) table 5 under 

the heading ‘‘Section 5—Control 

Strategies for Attainment and 

Nonattainment Areas’’ by adding an 

entry for ‘‘Oregon Regional Haze State 

Implementation Plan Revision for the 

Second Planning Period (2018–2028)’’ 

immediately after the entry for 

‘‘Regional Haze Progress Report.’’ 

The revisions and additions read as 

follows: 

§ 52.1970 Identification of plan. 

* * * * * 

(c) * * * 

TABLE 2—EPA-APPROVED OREGON ADMINISTRATIVE RULES (OAR) 1

State citation Title/subject 

State 

effective 

date 

EPA approval date Explanations 

*******

Division 223—Regional Haze Rules 

223–0010 ................. Purpose ..................................................... 7/26/2021 10/8/2024, [INSERT FIRST PAGE OF

FEDERAL REGISTER CITATION].

223–0020 ................. Definitions .................................................. 7/26/2021 10/8/2024, [INSERT FIRST PAGE OF 

FEDERAL REGISTER CITATION].

223–0100 ................. Screening Methodology for Sources for 

Round II of Regional Haze.

7/26/2021 10/8/2024, [INSERT FIRST PAGE OF 

FEDERAL REGISTER CITATION].

223–0110 ................. Options for Compliance with Round II of 

Regional Haze.

7/26/2021 10/8/2024, [INSERT FIRST PAGE OF 

FEDERAL REGISTER CITATION].

223–0120 ................. Four Factor Analysis ................................. 7/26/2021 10/8/2024, [INSERT FIRST PAGE OF 

FEDERAL REGISTER CITATION].

223–0130 ................. Final Orders Ordering Compliance with 

Round II of Regional Haze.

7/26/2021 10/8/2024, [INSERT FIRST PAGE OF 

FEDERAL REGISTER CITATION].

* * * * * * * 

* * * * * (d) EPA approved state sourcespecific requirements. 

EPA APPROVED OREGON SOURCE-SPECIFIC REQUIREMENTS 1

Name of source Permit or order number State effective date EPA approval date Explanations 

Industrial Laundry & Dry 

Cleaners.

26–3025 ............................ 12/9/1980 .......................... 8/27/1981, 46 FR 43142 ... Air Contaminant Discharge 

Permit. 

VANPLY, Inc. & Spalding 

Pulp & Paper Co.

Stipulation and Consent 

Final Order.

12/30/1980 ........................ 8/27/1981, 46 FR 43142 ... Transfer by VANPLY, INC. 

of a VOC Offset to 

Spalding Pulp & Paper 

Co. 

Spaulding Pulp and Paper 

Co.

36–6041 ............................ 12/11/1980 ........................ 8/27/1981, 46 FR 43142 ... Air Contaminant Discharge 

Permit—Addendum No. 

1. 

Weyerhaeuser Company— 

Bly, Oregon.

18–0037 ............................ 2/3/1981 ............................ 11/6/1981, 46 FR 55101 ... Air Contaminant Discharge 

Permit—Conditions 5 

and 6. 

Intel Corporation ................ 34–2681 ............................ 9/24/1993 (State effective 

date of Title V Program).

7/18/1996, 61 FR 37393 ... Oregon Title-V Operating 

Permit—Page 11. 

Cascade General (Port of 

Portland).

26–3224 ............................ 10/4/1995 .......................... 3/7/1997, 62 FR 10455 ..... Air Contaminant Discharge 

Permit—Condition 19 of 

Addendum 2. 

White Consolidated Inc ..... 34–2060 ............................ 8/1/1995 ............................ 3/7/1997, 62 FR 10455 ..... Air Contaminant Discharge 

Permit—Conditions 

11,12 and 13 in Addendum No. 2. 

PCC Structurals, Inc .......... 26–1867 ............................ 4/4/1997 ............................ 6/20/1997, 62 FR 33548 ... Air Contaminant Discharge 

Permit—Conditions 19, 

20 and 21 in Addendum 

No. 2. 

Dura Industries .................. 26–3112 ............................ 9/14/1995 .......................... 3/31/1998, 63 FR 15293 ... Air Contaminant Discharge 

Permit. 

Ostrander Construction 

Company Fremont Sawmill.

ACDP No. 19–0002 .......... 4/29/1998 .......................... 9/21/1999, 64 FR 51051 ... Air Contaminant Discharge 

Permit. 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 195 / Tuesday, October 8, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 81385 

EPA APPROVED OREGON SOURCE-SPECIFIC REQUIREMENTS 1—Continued 

Name of source Permit or order number State effective date EPA approval date Explanations 

Ash Grove Cement Company.Permit No. 01–0029–TV– 

01.

10/16/2020 ........................ 10/8/2024, [INSERT 

FIRST PAGE OF FEDERAL REGISTER CITATION].

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 ............................ 10/8/2024, [INSERT 

FIRST PAGE OF FEDERAL REGISTER CITATION].

Boise Cascade Wood 

Products, LLC—Elgin 

Complex.

Order No. 31–0006 ........... 8/12/2021 .......................... 10/8/2024, [INSERT 

FIRST PAGE OF FEDERAL REGISTER CITATION].

Boise Cascade Wood 

Products, LLC—Elgin 

Complex.

Permit No. 31–0006–TV– 

01.

12/5/2016 .......................... 10/8/2024, [INSERT 

FIRST PAGE OF FEDERAL REGISTER CITATION].

Permit condition (56), (59) 

through (75), (77), and 

(78) only. 

Boise Cascade Wood 

Products, LLC—Medford.

Order No. 15–0004 ........... 8/9/2021 ............................ 10/8/2024, [INSERT 

FIRST PAGE OF FEDERAL REGISTER CITATION].

Boise Cascade Wood 

Products, LLC—Medford.

Permit No. 15–0004–TV– 

01.

2/20/2020 .......................... 10/8/2024, [INSERT 

FIRST PAGE OF FEDERAL REGISTER CITATION].

Permit conditions (71), 

(72), and (74) through 

(88) only. 

Cascade Pacific Pulp, 

LLC—Halsey Pulp Mill.

Order No. 22–3501–A2 ..... 8/25/2023 .......................... 10/8/2024, [INSERT 

FIRST PAGE OF FEDERAL REGISTER CITATION].

Cascades Tissue Group: A 

Division of Cascades 

Holding US Inc. 

Order No. 05–1849 ........... 8/18/2021 .......................... 10/8/2024, [INSERT 

FIRST PAGE OF FEDERAL REGISTER CITATION].

Cascades Tissue Group: A 

Division of Cascades 

Holding US Inc. 

Permit No. 05–1849–TV– 

01.

04/6/2018 .......................... 10/8/2024, [INSERT 

FIRST PAGE OF FEDERAL REGISTER CITATION].

Permit conditions (24), 

(25), (27), and (29) 

through (43) only. 

Collins Products, L.L.C ...... Permit No. 18–0013–TV– 

01.

1/26/2015 .......................... 10/8/2024, [INSERT 

FIRST PAGE OF FEDERAL REGISTER CITATION].

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 .......................... 10/8/2024, [INSERT 

FIRST PAGE OF FEDERAL REGISTER CITATION].

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 ............................ 10/8/2024, [INSERT 

FIRST PAGE OF FEDERAL REGISTER CITATION].

Gas Transmission Northwest LLC—Compressor 

Station 12.

Order No. 09–0084 ........... 8/9/2021 ............................ 10/8/2024, [INSERT 

FIRST PAGE OF FEDERAL REGISTER CITATION].

Gas Transmission Northwest LLC—Compressor 

Station 12.

Permit No. 09–0084–TV– 

01.

8/10/2017 .......................... 10/8/2024, [INSERT 

FIRST PAGE OF FEDERAL REGISTER CITATION].

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 ............................ 10/8/2024, [INSERT 

FIRST PAGE OF FEDERAL REGISTER CITATION].

OAH CASE NO. 2021– 

ABC–04835; 

DEQ CASE NO. AQ/RH– 

HQ–2021–140. 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES1
81386 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 195 / Tuesday, October 8, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

EPA APPROVED OREGON SOURCE-SPECIFIC REQUIREMENTS 1—Continued 

Name of source Permit or order number State effective date EPA approval date Explanations 

Gas Transmission Northwest LLC—Compressor 

Station 13.

Permit No. 18–0096–TV– 

01.

7/11/2018 .......................... 10/8/2024, [INSERT 

FIRST PAGE OF FEDERAL REGISTER CITATION].

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 .......................... 10/8/2024, [INSERT 

FIRST PAGE OF FEDERAL REGISTER CITATION].

Georgia Pacific—Wauna 

Mill.

Order No. 04–0004, 

Amendment No. 04– 

004–A1.

12/5/2022 .......................... 10/8/2024, [INSERT 

FIRST PAGE OF FEDERAL REGISTER CITATION].

Gilchrist Forest Products ... Permit No. 18–0005–TV– 

01.

7/25/2023 .......................... 10/8/2024, [INSERT 

FIRST PAGE OF FEDERAL REGISTER CITATION].

Permit conditions (4), (5), 

(9), (10), (12) though 

(19), (41) through (43), 

(45) through (59), and 

(61) only. 

International Paper— 

Springfield.

Order No. 208850 ............. 8/9/2021 ............................ 10/8/2024, [INSERT 

FIRST PAGE OF FEDERAL REGISTER CITATION].

International Paper— 

Springfield.

Permit No. 208850 ............ 10/4/2016 .......................... 10/8/2024, [INSERT 

FIRST PAGE OF FEDERAL REGISTER CITATION].

Permit conditions (186) 

through (189), (192), 

and (198) only. 

JELD–WEN ....................... Permit No. 18–0006–TV– 

01.

12/01/2021 ........................ 10/8/2024, [INSERT 

FIRST PAGE OF FEDERAL REGISTER CITATION].

Permit conditions (55) 

through (77) and (80) 

through (87) only. 

JELD–WEN ....................... Permit No. 18–0006–TV– 

01, Addendum No, 1.

8/11/2022 .......................... 10/8/2024, [INSERT 

FIRST PAGE OF FEDERAL REGISTER CITATION].

Permit conditions 53 and 

53b only. 

Kingsford Manufacturing 

Company.

Permit No. 204402, addendum No. 2.11/15/2021 ........................ 10/8/2024, [INSERT 

FIRST PAGE OF FEDERAL REGISTER CITATION].

Permit conditions (71) 

through (73) and (75) 

through (91) only. 

Klamath Energy LLC— 

Klamath Cogeneration.

Permit No. 18–0003–TV– 

01.

6/12/2017 .......................... 10/8/2024, [INSERT 

FIRST PAGE OF FEDERAL REGISTER CITATION].

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 .......................... 10/8/2024, [INSERT 

FIRST PAGE OF FEDERAL REGISTER CITATION].

Permit conditions (3.a), 

(3.b), (61.l), and 

(66.b.xii). 

Northwest Pipeline LLC— 

Baker Compressor Station.

Order No. 01–0038, 

amendment 01–0038– 

A1.

2/1/2022 ............................ 10/8/2024, [INSERT 

FIRST PAGE OF FEDERAL REGISTER CITATION].

Northwest Pipeline LLC— 

Baker Compressor Station.

Permit No. 01–0038–TV– 

01.

1/12/2017 .......................... 10/8/2024, [INSERT 

FIRST PAGE OF FEDERAL REGISTER CITATION].

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 ............................ 10/8/2024, [INSERT 

FIRST PAGE OF FEDERAL REGISTER CITATION].

Northwest Pipeline LLC— 

Oregon City Compressor 

Station.

Permit No. 03–2729–TV– 

01.

2/19/2013 .......................... 10/8/2024, [INSERT 

FIRST PAGE OF FEDERAL REGISTER CITATION].

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 .......................... 10/8/2024, [INSERT 

FIRST PAGE OF FEDERAL REGISTER CITATION].

Permit conditions (1.1) 

through (1.3), (1.6), ( 

2.1) through (2.5), (4.1) 

though (4.4), and (5.1) 

through (6.2). 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 195 / Tuesday, October 8, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 81387 

EPA APPROVED OREGON SOURCE-SPECIFIC REQUIREMENTS 1—Continued 

Name of source Permit or order number State effective date EPA approval date Explanations 

Owens-Brockway Glass 

Container Inc.

Order No. 26–1876 ........... 8/9/2021 ............................ 10/8/2024, [INSERT 

FIRST PAGE OF FEDERAL REGISTER CITATION].

Owens-Brockway Glass 

Container Inc.

Permit No. 26–1876–TV– 

01.

12/10/2019 ........................ 10/8/2024, [INSERT 

FIRST PAGE OF FEDERAL REGISTER CITATION].

Permit conditions (33) 

through (48) only. 

Pacific Wood Laminates, 

Inc.

Permit No. 08–0003–TV– 

01.

12/30/2019 ........................ 10/8/2024, [INSERT 

FIRST PAGE OF FEDERAL REGISTER CITATION].

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 .......................... 10/8/2024, [INSERT 

FIRST PAGE OF FEDERAL REGISTER CITATION].

PGE Beaver Plant/Port 

Westward I Plant.

Permit No. 05–2520 .......... 01/21/2009 ........................ 10/8/2024, [INSERT 

FIRST PAGE OF FEDERAL REGISTER CITATION].

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 ............................ 10/8/2024, [INSERT 

FIRST PAGE OF FEDERAL REGISTER CITATION].

Roseburg Forest Products—Medford MDF.Permit No. 15–0073–TV– 

01.

08/18/2022 ........................ 10/8/2024, [INSERT 

FIRST PAGE OF FEDERAL REGISTER CITATION].

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 ........................ 10/8/2024, [INSERT 

FIRST PAGE OF FEDERAL REGISTER CITATION].

Permit conditions (65), 

(66), (68) through (81) 

only. 

Swanson Group Mfg. LLC Permit No. 10–0045–TV–0l 06/12/2017 ........................ 10/8/2024, [INSERT 

FIRST PAGE OF FEDERAL REGISTER CITATION].

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 .......................... 10/8/2024, [INSERT 

FIRST PAGE OF FEDERAL REGISTER CITATION].

Permit conditions (70) 

through (72) and (74) 

through (90) only. 

Willamette Falls Paper 

Company.

Order No. 03–2145 ........... 8/9/2021 ............................ 10/8/2024, [INSERT 

FIRST PAGE OF FEDERAL REGISTER CITATION].

Willamette Falls Paper 

Company.

Permit No. 03–2145–TV– 

01.

2/24/2016 .......................... 10/8/2024, [INSERT 

FIRST PAGE OF FEDERAL REGISTER CITATION].

Permit conditions (40) 

through (55) only. 

Woodgrain Millwork LLC— 

Particleboard.

Permit No. 31–0002–TV– 

01.

5/24/2021 .......................... 10/8/2024, [INSERT 

FIRST PAGE OF FEDERAL REGISTER CITATION].

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. 

1The EPA does not have the authority to remove these source-specific requirements in the absence of a demonstration that their removal 

would not interfere with attainment or maintenance of the NAAQS, violate any prevention of significant deterioration increment or result in visibility impairment. The Oregon Department of Environmental Quality may request removal by submitting such a demonstration to the EPA as a 

SIP revision. 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES1
81388 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 195 / Tuesday, October 8, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

(e) * * * 

TABLE 5—STATE OF OREGON AIR QUALITY CONTROL PROGRAM—NONREGULATORY PROVISIONS AND QUASIREGULATORY MEASURES

Name of SIP provision 

Applicable 

geographic or 

nonattainment 

area 

State submittal date EPA approval date Explanations 

*******

Section 5—Control Strategies for Attainment and Nonattainment Areas 

*******

Oregon Regional Haze State Implementation.

Plan Revision for the Second 

Planning Period (2018–2028).

Statewide .......... 4/29/2022 and 11/22/2023 ............ 10/8/2024, [INSERT FIRST PAGE 

OF FEDERAL REGISTER CITATION].

*******

[FR Doc. 2024–22603 Filed 10–7–24; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Fish and Wildlife Service 

50 CFR Part 17 

[FXES1111090FEDR–245–FF09E21000] 

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife 

and Plants; 90-Day Findings for 8 

Species 

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Interior. 

ACTION: Notification of petition findings 

and initiation of status reviews. 

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service (Service), announce 90- 

day findings on eight petitions to add 

species to the Lists of Endangered and 

Threatened Wildlife and Plants under 

the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as 

amended (Act). Based on our review, we 

find that the petitions to list the Crater 

Lake newt (Taricha granulosa 

mazamae), Florida intertidal firefly 

(Micronaspis floridana), Iowa skipper 

(Atrytone arogos iowa), San Francisco 

Estuary population of white sturgeon 

(Acipenser transmontanus), and Tecopa 

bird’s beak (Chloropyron tecopense) 

present substantial scientific or 

commercial information indicating that 

the petitioned actions may be 

warranted. Therefore, with the 

publication of this document, we 

announce that we are initiating status 

reviews of these species to determine 

whether the petitioned actions are 

warranted. To ensure that the status 

reviews are comprehensive, we request 

scientific and commercial data and 

other information regarding the species 

and factors that may affect their status. 

Based on the status reviews, we will 

issue 12-month petition findings, which 

will address whether or not the 

petitioned actions are warranted in 

accordance with the Act. We further 

find that the petitions to list Betta 

miniopinna, long-tailed macaque 

(Macaca fascicularis), and southern pigtailed macaque (Macaca nemestrina) do 

not present substantial information 

indicating the petitioned action may be 

warranted. Therefore, we are not 

initiating status reviews of Betta 

miniopinna, long-tailed macaque, or 

southern pig-tailed macaque. 

DATES: These findings were made on 

October 8, 2024. As we commence our 

status reviews, we seek any new 

information concerning the status of, or 

threats to, the Crater Lake newt, Florida 

intertidal firefly, Iowa skipper, San 

Francisco Estuary population of white 

sturgeon, and Tecopa bird’s beak, or 

their habitats. Any information we 

receive during the course of our status 

reviews will be considered. 

ADDRESSES: 

Supporting documents: Summaries of 

the basis for the petition findings 

contained in this document are 

available on https://www.regulations.

gov under the appropriate docket 

number (see tables under 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION). In 

addition, this supporting information is 

available by contacting the appropriate 

person, as specified in FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT. 

Status reviews: If you have new 

scientific or commercial data or other 

information concerning the status of, or 

threats to, the Crater Lake newt, Florida 

intertidal firefly, Iowa skipper, San 

Francisco Estuary population of white 

sturgeon, or Tecopa bird’s beak, or their 

habitats, please provide those data or 

information by one of the following 

methods listed below. 

(1) Electronically: Go to the Federal 

eRulemaking Portal: https:// 

www.regulations.gov. In the Search box, 

enter the appropriate docket number 

(see table 1 under SUPPLEMENTARY

INFORMATION). Then, click on the 

‘‘Search’’ button. After finding the 

correct document, you may submit 

information by clicking on ‘‘Comment.’’ 

If your information will fit in the 

provided comment box, please use this 

feature of https://www.regulations.gov, 

as it is most compatible with our 

information review procedures. If you 

attach your information as a separate 

document, our preferred file format is 

Microsoft Word. If you attach multiple 

comments (such as form letters), our 

preferred format is a spreadsheet in 

Microsoft Excel. 

(2) By hard copy: Submit by U.S. mail 

to: Public Comments Processing, Attn: 

[Insert appropriate docket number; see 

table 1 under SUPPLEMENTARY

INFORMATION], U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service, MS: PRB/3W, 5275 Leesburg 

Pike, Falls Church, VA 22041–3803. 

We request that you send information 

only by the methods described above. 

We will post all information we receive 

on https://www.regulations.gov. This 

generally means that we will post any 

personal information you provide us 

(see Information Submitted for a Status 

Review, below). 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES1