Document ID: EPA-R10-OAR-2012-0344-0001
Agency: epa
Document Type: Proposed Rule
Title: Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans: Oregon; Regional Haze State Implementation Plan
Posted Date: 2012-05-23T04:00Z

[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 100 (Wednesday, May 23, 2012)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 30454-30467]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-12490]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R10-OAR-2012-0344, FRL-9676-1]

Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; State of 
Oregon; Regional Haze State Implementation Plan

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve portions of a State Implementation 
Plan (SIP) revision submitted by the State of Oregon on December 10, 
2010 and supplemented on February 1, 2011, as meeting the requirements 
of Clean Air Act (CAA or the Act) section 169A and B and Federal 
Regulations in 40 CFR 51.308. In a previous action on July 5, 2011, EPA 
approved portions of the December 10, 2010, SIP submittal as meeting 
the requirements for interstate transport for visibility of CAA section 
110(a)(2)(D)(II) and certain requirements of the regional haze program 
including the requirements for best available retrofit technology 
(BART). 76 FR 38997. The action in this Federal Register notice 
addresses the remaining requirements of the CAA and EPA's rules that 
require states to prevent any future and remedy any existing 
anthropogenic impairment of visibility in mandatory Class I areas 
caused by emissions of air pollutants from numerous sources located 
over a wide geographic area (also referred to as the ``regional haze 
program''). In this action, EPA proposes to approve the remaining 
regional haze SIP elements for which EPA previously took no action in 
the July 5, 2011 notice.

DATES: Written comments must be received at the address below on or 
before June 22, 2012.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R10-
OAR-2012-0344 by one of the following methods:
     www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for 
submitting comments.
     Email: R10-Public_Comments@epa.gov.
     Mail: Keith Rose, EPA Region 10, Suite 900, Office of Air, 
Waste and Toxics, 1200 Sixth Avenue, Seattle, WA 98101.
     Hand Delivery: EPA Region 10, 1200 Sixth Avenue, Suite 
900, Seattle, WA 98101. Attention: Keith Rose, Office of Air, Waste and 
Toxics, AWT-107. Such deliveries are only accepted during normal hours 
of operation, and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of 
boxed information.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R10-OAR-
2012-0344. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included 
in the public docket without change and may be made available online at 
www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided, 
unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential 
Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is 
restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to 
be CBI or otherwise protected through www.regulations.gov or email. The 
www.regulations.gov Web site is an ``anonymous access'' system, which 
means EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you 
provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an email comment 
directly to EPA, without going through www.regulations.gov, your email 
address will be automatically captured and included as part of the 
comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on the 
Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you 
include your name and other contact information in the body of your 
comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your 
comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for 
clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic 
files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of 
encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses.
    Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the 
www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some 
information is not publicly available (e.g., CBI or other information 
whose disclosure is restricted by statute). Certain other material, 
such as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard 
copy form. Publicly available docket materials are available either 
electronically at www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Office of 
Air, Waste and Toxics, EPA Region 10, 1200 Sixth Avenue, Seattle, WA 
98101. EPA requests that if at all possible, you contact the individual 
listed below to view a hard copy of the docket.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Keith Rose at telephone number (206) 
553-1949, rose.keith@epa.gov, or the above EPA, Region 10 address.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document whenever ``we,'' 
``us,'' or ``our'' is used, we mean the EPA. Information is organized 
as follows:

Table of Contents

I. Background for EPA's Proposed Action
    A. Definition of Regional Haze
    B. Regional Haze Rules and Regulations
    C. Roles of Agencies in Addressing Regional Haze
II. Requirements for the Regional Haze SIPs
    A. The CAA and the Regional Haze Rule
    B. Determination of Baseline, Natural, and Current Visibility 
Conditions
    C. Consultation With States and Federal Land Managers
    D. Best Available Retrofit Technology
    E. Determination of Reasonable Progress Goals
    F. Long Term Strategy
    G. Coordinating Regional Haze and Reasonably Attributable 
Visibility Impairment
    H. Monitoring Strategy and Other Implementation Plan 
Requirements
III. EPA's Analysis of the Oregon Regional Haze SIP
    A. Affected Class I Areas
    B. Baseline and Natural Conditions
    C. Oregon Emissions Inventory
    D. Sources of Visibility Impairment in Oregon Class I Areas
    E. Best Available Retrofit Technology
    F. Reasonable Progress Goals
    1. Determination of Reasonable Progress Goals
    2. Demonstration of Reasonable Progress
    3. EPA's Determination Whether the SIP Meets 40 CFR 51.308(d)(1)
    G. Long Term Strategy
    1. Ongoing Air Pollution Control Programs
    a. Prevention of Significant Deterioration/New Source Review 
Rules
    b. Reasonably Attributable Visibility Impairment BART
    c. Oregon's Phase I Visibility Protection Program
    d. Implementation of State and Federal Mobile Source Regulations
    e. On-Going Implementation of Programs to meet PM10 
NAAQS
    2. Measures to Mitigate the Impacts of Construction Activities
    3. Emission Limitations and Schedules of Compliance
    4. Source Retirement and Replacement Schedules
    5. Smoke Management Techniques for Agricultural and Forestry 
Burning
    6. Enforceability of Emission Limitations and Control Measures
    H. Monitoring Strategy and Other Implementation Plan 
Requirements
    I. Consultation With States and Federal Land Managers

[[Page 30455]]

    J. Periodic SIP Revisions and Five-Year Progress Reports
IV. What action is EPA proposing?
V. Oregon Notice Provision
VI. Scope of Action
VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. Background for EPA's Proposed Action

    In the CAA Amendments of 1977, Congress established a program to 
protect and improve visibility in the national parks and wilderness 
areas. See CAA section 169A. Congress amended the visibility provisions 
in the CAA in 1990 to focus attention on the problem of regional haze. 
See CAA section 169B. EPA promulgated regulations in 1999 to implement 
sections 169A and 169B of the Act. These regulations require states to 
develop and implement plans to ensure reasonable progress toward 
improving visibility in mandatory Class I Federal areas \1\ (Class I 
areas). 64 FR 35714 (July 1, 1999); see also 70 FR 39104 (July 6, 2005) 
and 71 FR 60612 (October 13, 2006).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Areas designated as mandatory Class I Federal areas consist 
of national parks exceeding 6,000 acres, wilderness areas and 
national memorial parks exceeding 5,000 acres, and all international 
parks that were in existence on August 7, 1977. 42 U.S.C. 7472(a). 
In accordance with section 169A of the CAA, EPA, in consultation 
with the Department of Interior, promulgated a list of 156 areas 
where visibility is identified as an important value. 44 FR 69122 
(November 30, 1979). The extent of a mandatory Class I area includes 
subsequent changes in boundaries, such as park expansions. 42 U.S.C. 
7472(a). Although states and tribes may designate as Class I 
additional areas which they consider to have visibility as an 
important value, the requirements of the visibility program set 
forth in section 169A of the CAA apply only to ``mandatory Class I 
Federal areas.'' Each mandatory Class I Federal area is the 
responsibility of a ``Federal Land Manager.'' 42 U.S.C. 7602(i). 
When we use the term ``Class I area'' in this action, we mean a 
``mandatory Class I Federal area.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On behalf of the State of Oregon, the Oregon Department of 
Environmental Quality (ODEQ) submitted its Regional Haze State 
Implementation Plan (Regional Haze SIP submission or SIP submittal) to 
EPA on December 10, 2010 and supplemented on February 1, 2011. In a 
previous action EPA approved certain provisions in Oregon's Regional 
Haze SIP submission. 76 FR 38997. This previous action approved the 
provisions BART (40 CFR 51.308(e), calculation of baseline and natural 
conditions (40 CFR 51.308(d)(2)), and state wide emission inventory of 
pollutants that are reasonably anticipated to cause or contribute to 
visibility impairment in any mandatory Class I area. EPA also approved 
Oregon Administrative Rules OAR 340-223-0010 through 340-223-0080 
(Regional Haze Rules). In that same action, EPA also approved portions 
of the SIP submittal as meeting the requirements of CAA section 
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) with respect to the visibility prong for the 1997 
8-hour ozone and 1997 PM2.5 National Ambient Air Quality 
Standards (NAAQS).
    In this action, EPA is proposing to approve the remaining 
provisions of Oregon's Regional Haze SIP submission including the 
portions that address the regional haze requirements for establishing 
Reasonable Progress Goals (RPGs) and the Long Term Strategy (LTS).

A. Definition of Regional Haze

    Regional haze is impairment of visual range or colorization caused 
by emission of air pollution produced by numerous sources and 
activities, located across a broad regional area. The sources include 
but are not limited to, major and minor stationary sources, mobile 
sources, and area sources including non-anthropogenic sources. These 
sources and activities may emit fine particles (PM2.5) 
(e.g., sulfates, nitrates, organic carbon, elemental carbon, and soil 
dust), and their precursors (e.g., sulfur dioxide (SO2), 
nitrogen oxides (NOX), and in some cases, ammonia 
(NH3) and volatile organic compounds (VOC)). Atmospheric 
fine particulate reduces clarity, color, and visual range of visual 
scenes. Visibility reducing fine particulate is primarily composed of 
sulfate, nitrate, organic carbon compounds, elemental carbon, and soil 
dust, and impairs visibility by scattering and absorbing light. Fine 
particulate can also cause serious health effects and mortality in 
humans, and contributes to environmental effects such as acid 
deposition and eutrophication. See 64 FR at 35715.
    Data from the existing visibility monitoring network, the 
``Interagency Monitoring of Protected Visual Environments'' (IMPROVE) 
monitoring network, show that visibility impairment caused by air 
pollution occurs virtually all the time at most national parks and 
wilderness areas. The average visual range in many Class I areas in the 
Western United States is 100-150 kilometers, or about one-half to two-
thirds the visual range that would exist without manmade air pollution. 
Id. Visibility impairment also varies day-to-day and by season 
depending on variation in meteorology and emission rates.

B. Regional Haze Rules and Regulations

    In section 169A of the 1977 CAA Amendments, Congress created a 
program for protecting visibility in the nation's national parks and 
wilderness areas. This section of the CAA establishes as a national 
goal the ``prevention of any future, and the remedying of any existing, 
impairment of visibility in Class I areas which impairment results from 
manmade air pollution.'' CAA section 169A(a)(1). On December 2, 1980, 
EPA promulgated regulations to address visibility impairment in Class I 
areas that is ``reasonably attributable'' to a single source or small 
group of sources, i.e., ``reasonably attributable visibility 
impairment'' (RAVI). 45 FR 80084. These regulations represented the 
first phase in addressing visibility impairment. EPA deferred action on 
regional haze that emanates from a variety of sources until monitoring, 
modeling and scientific knowledge about the relationships between 
pollutants and visibility impairment were improved.
    Congress added section 169B to the CAA in 1990 to address regional 
haze issues. EPA promulgated a rule to address regional haze on July 1, 
1999 (64 FR 35713) (the regional haze rule or RHR). The RHR revised the 
existing visibility regulations to integrate into the regulation, 
provisions addressing regional haze impairment and established a 
comprehensive visibility protection program for Class I areas. The 
requirements for regional haze, found at 40 CFR 51.308 and 51.309, are 
included in EPA's visibility protection regulations at 40 CFR 51.300-
309. Some of the main elements of the regional haze requirements are 
summarized in section III of this rulemaking. The requirement to submit 
a regional haze SIP applies to all 50 states, the District of Columbia 
and the Virgin Islands.\2\ 40 CFR 51.308(b) requires states to submit 
the first implementation plan addressing regional haze visibility 
impairment no later than December 17, 2007.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Albuquerque/Bernalillo County in New Mexico must also submit 
a regional haze SIP to completely satisfy the requirements of 
section 110(a)(2)(D) of the CAA for the entire State of New Mexico 
under the New Mexico Air Quality Control Act (section 74-2-4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. Roles of Agencies in Addressing Regional Haze

    Successful implementation of the regional haze program will require 
long-term regional coordination among states, tribal governments and 
various Federal agencies. As noted above, pollution affecting the air 
quality in Class I areas can be transported over long distances, even 
hundreds of kilometers. Therefore, to effectively address the problem 
of visibility impairment in Class I areas, states need to develop 
strategies in coordination with one another, taking into account

[[Page 30456]]

the effect of emissions from one jurisdiction on the air quality in 
another.
    Because the pollutants that lead to regional haze impairment can 
originate from across state lines, even across international 
boundaries, EPA has encouraged the States and Tribes to address 
visibility impairment from a regional perspective. Five regional 
planning organizations \3\ (RPOs) were created nationally to address 
regional haze and related issues. One of the main objectives of the 
RPOs is to develop and analyze data and conduct pollutant transport 
modeling to assist the States or Tribes in developing their regional 
haze plans.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See http://www.epa.gov/air/visibility/regional.html for 
description of the regional planning organizations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Western Regional Air Partnership (WRAP),\4\ one of the five 
RPOs nationally, is a voluntary partnership of State, Tribal, Federal, 
and local air agencies dealing with air quality in the West. WRAP 
member States include: Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Oregon, 
Montana, New Mexico, North Dakota, Idaho, South Dakota, Utah, 
Washington, and Wyoming. WRAP Tribal members include Campo Band of 
Kumeyaay Indians, Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes, Cortina 
Indian Rancheria, Hopi Tribe, Hualapai Nation of the Grand Canyon, 
Native Village of Shungnak, Nez Perce Tribe, Northern Cheyenne Tribe, 
Pueblo of Acoma, Pueblo of San Felipe, and Shoshone-Bannock Tribes of 
Fort Hall.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ The WRAP Web site can be found at http://www.wrapair.org.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As a result of the regional planning efforts in the West, all 
states in the WRAP region contributed information to a Technical 
Support System (TSS) which provides an analysis of the causes of haze, 
and the levels of contribution from all sources within each state to 
the visibility degradation of each Class I area. The WRAP States 
consulted in the development of reasonable progress goals, using the 
products of this technical consultation process to co-develop their 
reasonable progress goals for the Western Class I areas. The modeling 
done by the WRAP relied on assumptions regarding emissions over the 
relevant planning period and embedded in these assumptions were 
anticipated emissions reductions in each of the States in the WRAP, 
including reductions from BART and other measures to be adopted as part 
of the State's long term strategy for addressing regional haze. The 
reasonable progress goals in the draft and final regional haze SIPs 
that have now been prepared by States in the West accordingly are 
based, in part, on the emissions reductions from nearby States that 
were agreed on through the WRAP process.

II. Requirements for Regional Haze SIPs

A. The CAA and the Regional Haze Rule

    Regional haze SIPs must assure reasonable progress towards the 
national goal of achieving natural visibility conditions in Class I 
areas. Section 169A of the CAA and EPA's implementing regulations 
require states to establish long-term strategies for making reasonable 
progress toward meeting this goal. Implementation plans must also give 
specific attention to certain stationary sources that were in existence 
on August 7, 1977, but were not in operation before August 7, 1962, and 
require these sources, where appropriate, to install BART controls for 
the purpose of eliminating or reducing visibility impairment. The 
specific regional haze SIP requirements are discussed in further detail 
below.

B. Determination of Baseline, Natural, and Current Visibility 
Conditions

    The RHR establishes the deciview (dv) as the principal metric for 
measuring visibility. This visibility metric expresses uniform changes 
in haziness in terms of common increments across the entire range of 
visibility conditions, from pristine to extremely hazy conditions. 
Visibility is determined by measuring the visual range (or deciview), 
which is the greatest distance, in kilometers or miles, at which a dark 
object can be viewed against the sky. The deciview is a useful measure 
for tracking progress in improving visibility, because each deciview 
change is an equal incremental change in visibility perceived by the 
human eye. Most people can detect a change in visibility at one 
deciview.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ The preamble to the RHR provides additional details about 
the deciview. 64 FR 35714, 35725 (July 1, 1999).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The deciview is used in expressing reasonable progress goals (which 
are interim visibility goals towards meeting the national visibility 
goal), defining baseline, current, and natural conditions, and tracking 
changes in visibility. The regional haze SIPs must contain measures 
that ensure ``reasonable progress'' toward the national goal of 
preventing and remedying visibility impairment in Class I areas caused 
by manmade air pollution by reducing anthropogenic emissions that cause 
regional haze. The national goal is a return to natural conditions, 
i.e., manmade sources of air pollution would no longer impair 
visibility in Class I areas.
    To track changes in visibility over time at each of the 156 Class I 
areas covered by the visibility program (40 CFR 81.401-437), and as 
part of the process for determining reasonable progress, states must 
calculate the degree of existing visibility impairment at each Class I 
area at the time of each regional haze SIP submittal and periodically 
review progress every five years midway through each 10-year 
implementation period. To do this, the RHR requires states to determine 
the degree of impairment (in deciviews) for the average of the 20% 
least impaired (``best'') and 20% most impaired (``worst'') visibility 
days over a specified time period at each of their Class I areas. In 
addition, states must also develop an estimate of natural visibility 
conditions for the purpose of comparing progress toward the national 
goal. Natural visibility is determined by estimating the natural 
concentrations of pollutants that cause visibility impairment and then 
calculating total light extinction based on those estimates. EPA has 
provided guidance to states regarding how to calculate baseline, 
natural and current visibility conditions in documents titled, EPA's 
Guidance for Estimating Natural Visibility Conditions Under the 
Regional Haze Rule, September 2003, (EPA-454/B-03-005 located at http://www.epa.gov/ttncaaa1/t1/memoranda/rh_envcurhr_gd.pdf), (hereinafter 
referred to as ``EPA's 2003 Natural Visibility Guidance''), and 
Guidance for Tracking Progress Under the Regional Haze Rule (EPA-454/B-
03-004 September 2003 located at http://www.epa.gov/ttncaaa1/t1/memoranda/rh_tpurhr_gd.pdf), (hereinafter referred to as ``EPA's 2003 
Tracking Progress Guidance'').
    For the first regional haze SIPs that were due by December 17, 
2007, ``baseline visibility conditions'' were the starting points for 
assessing ``current'' visibility impairment. Baseline visibility 
conditions represent the degree of visibility impairment for the 20% 
least impaired days and 20% most impaired days for each calendar year 
from 2000 to 2004. Using monitoring data for 2000 through 2004, states 
are required to calculate the average degree of visibility impairment 
for each Class I area, based on the average of annual values over the 
five-year period. The comparison of initial baseline visibility 
conditions to natural visibility conditions indicates the amount of 
improvement necessary to attain natural visibility, while the future 
comparison of baseline conditions to the then current

[[Page 30457]]

conditions will indicate the amount of progress made. In general, the 
2000-2004 baseline time period is considered the time from which 
improvement in visibility is measured.

C. Consultation With States and Federal Land Managers

    The RHR requires that states consult with Federal Land Managers 
(FLMs) before adopting and submitting their SIPs. 40 CFR 51.308(i). 
States must provide FLMs an opportunity for consultation, in person and 
at least 60 days prior to holding any public hearing on the SIP. This 
consultation must include the opportunity for the FLMs to discuss their 
assessment of visibility impairment in any Class I area and to offer 
recommendations on the development of the reasonable progress goals and 
on the development and implementation of strategies to address 
visibility impairment. Further, a state must include in its SIP a 
description of how it addressed any comments provided by the FLMs. 
Finally, a SIP must provide procedures for continuing consultation 
between the state and FLMs regarding the state's visibility protection 
program, including development and review of SIP revisions, five-year 
progress reports, and the implementation of other programs having the 
potential to contribute to impairment of visibility in Class I areas.

D. Best Available Retrofit Technology

    Section 169A of the CAA directs states to evaluate the use of 
retrofit controls at certain larger, often uncontrolled, older 
stationary sources in order to address visibility impacts from these 
sources. Specifically, section 169A(b)(2)(A) of the CAA requires States 
to revise their SIPs to contain such measures as may be necessary to 
make reasonable progress towards the natural visibility goal, including 
a requirement that certain categories of existing major stationary 
sources \6\ built between 1962 and 1977, to procure, install, and 
operate the ``Best Available Retrofit Technology'' (BART) as determined 
by the state. States are directed to conduct BART determinations for 
such sources that may be anticipated to cause or contribute to any 
visibility impairment in a Class I area. The regional haze SIP must 
include source-specific BART emission limits and compliance schedules 
for each source subject to BART. Once a State has made its BART 
determination, the BART controls must be installed and in operation as 
expeditiously as practicable, but no later than five years after the 
date EPA approves the regional haze SIP. See CAA section 169A(g)(4); 40 
CFR 51.308(e)(1)(iv).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ The set of ``major stationary sources'' potentially subject 
to BART is listed in CAA section 169A(g)(7).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA previously approved Oregon's BART determination for the sources 
subject to BART in its jurisdiction. See 76 FR 38997. Please refer to 
that action for details of the BART requirements and EPA's rationale 
for approval of the BART provisions in the Oregon Regional Haze SIP 
submission.

E. Determination of Reasonable Progress Goals

    The vehicle for ensuring continuing progress towards achieving the 
natural visibility goal is the submission of a series of regional haze 
SIPs from the states that establish two reasonable progress goals 
(RPGs) (i.e., two distinct goals, one for the ``best'' and one for the 
``worst'' days) for every Class I area for each (approximately) 10-year 
implementation period. The RHR does not mandate specific milestones or 
rates of progress, but instead calls for states to establish goals that 
provide for ``reasonable progress'' toward achieving natural (i.e., 
``background'') visibility conditions. In setting RPGs, states must 
provide for an improvement in visibility for the most impaired days 
over the (approximately) 10-year period of the SIP, and ensure no 
degradation in visibility for the least impaired days over the same 
period.
    States have significant discretion in establishing RPGs, but are 
required to consider the following factors established in section 169A 
of the CAA and in EPA's RHR at 40 CFR 51.308(d)(1)(i)(A): (1) The costs 
of compliance; (2) the time necessary for compliance; (3) the energy 
and non-air quality environmental impacts of compliance; and (4) the 
remaining useful life of any potentially affected sources. States must 
demonstrate in their SIPs how these factors are considered when 
selecting the RPGs for the best and worst days for each applicable 
Class I area. States have considerable flexibility in how they take 
these factors into consideration, as noted in EPA's Guidance for 
Setting Reasonable Progress Goals under the Regional Haze Program, July 
1, 2007, Memorandum from William L. Wehrum, Acting Assistant 
Administrator for Air and Radiation, to EPA Regional Administrators, 
EPA Regions 1-10 (pp.4-2, 5-1) (``EPA's Reasonable Progress 
Guidance''). In setting the RPGs, states must also consider the rate of 
progress needed to reach natural visibility conditions by 2064 
(referred to as the ``uniform rate of progress'' (URP) or the 
``glidepath'') and the emission reduction measures needed to achieve 
that rate of progress over the 10-year period of the SIP. Uniform 
progress towards achievement of natural conditions by the year 2064 
represents a rate of progress which states are to use for analytical 
comparison to the amount of progress they expect to achieve. In setting 
RPGs, each state with one or more Class I areas (``Class I state'') 
must also consult with potentially ``contributing states,'' i.e., other 
nearby states with emission sources that may be affecting visibility 
impairment at the state's Class I areas. See 40 CFR 51.308(d)(1)(iv).

F. Long Term Strategy

    Consistent with the requirement in section 169A(b) of the CAA that 
states include in their regional haze SIP a 10 to 15 year strategy for 
making reasonable progress, 40 CFR 51.308(d)(3) of the RHR requires 
that states include an LTS in their regional haze SIPs. The LTS is the 
compilation of all control measures a state will use during the 
implementation period of the specific SIP submittal to meet applicable 
RPGs. The LTS must include ``enforceable emissions limitations, 
compliance schedules, and other measures as necessary to achieve the 
reasonable progress goals'' for all Class I areas within, or affected 
by emissions from, the state. See 40 CFR 51.308(d)(3).
    When a state's emissions are reasonably anticipated to cause or 
contribute to visibility impairment in a Class I area located in 
another state, the RHR requires the impacted state to coordinate with 
the contributing states in order to develop coordinated emissions 
management strategies. See 40 CFR 51.308(d)(3)(i). In such cases, the 
contributing state must demonstrate that it has included, in its SIP, 
all measures necessary to obtain its share of the emissions reductions 
needed to meet the RPGs for the Class I area. The RPOs have provided 
forums for significant interstate consultation, but additional 
consultations between states may be required to sufficiently address 
interstate visibility issues. This is especially true where two states 
belong to different RPOs.
    States should consider all types of anthropogenic sources of 
visibility impairment in developing their LTS, including stationary, 
minor, mobile, and area sources. At a minimum, states must describe how 
each of the following seven factors listed below are taken into account 
in developing their LTS: (1) Emissions reductions due to ongoing air 
pollution control programs, including measures to address RAVI; (2) 
measures

[[Page 30458]]

to mitigate the impacts of construction activities; (3) emissions 
limitations and schedules for compliance to achieve the RPG; (4) source 
retirement and replacement schedules; (5) smoke management techniques 
for agricultural and forestry management purposes including plans as 
currently exist within the state for these purposes; (6) enforceability 
of emissions limitations and control measures; and (7) the anticipated 
net effect on visibility due to projected changes in point, area, and 
mobile source emissions over the period addressed by the LTS. See 40 
CFR 51.308(d)(3)(v).

G. Coordinating Regional Haze and Reasonably Attributable Visibility 
Impairment

    As part of the RHR, EPA revised 40 CFR 51.306(c) regarding the LTS 
for RAVI to require that the RAVI plan must provide for a periodic 
review and SIP revision not less frequently than every three years 
until the date of submission of the state's first plan addressing 
regional haze visibility impairment, which was due December 17, 2007, 
in accordance with 40 CFR 51.308(b) and (c). On or before this date, 
the state must revise its plan to provide for review and revision of a 
coordinated LTS for addressing RAVI and regional haze, and the state 
must submit the first such coordinated LTS with its first regional haze 
SIP. Future coordinated LTS's, and periodic progress reports evaluating 
progress towards RPGs, must be submitted consistent with the schedule 
for SIP submissions and periodic progress reports set forth in 40 CFR 
51.308(f) and 51.308(g), respectively. The periodic review of a state's 
LTS must report on both regional haze and RAVI impairment and must be 
submitted to EPA as a SIP revision.

H. Monitoring Strategy and Other Implementation Plan Requirements

    Section 51.308(d)(4) of the RHR includes the requirement for a 
monitoring strategy for measuring, characterizing, and reporting of 
regional haze visibility impairment that is representative of all 
mandatory Class I Federal areas within the state. The strategy must be 
coordinated with the monitoring strategy required in section 51.305 for 
RAVI. Compliance with this requirement may be met through 
``participation'' in the IMPROVE network, i.e., review and use of 
monitoring data from the network. The monitoring strategy is due with 
the first regional haze SIP, and it must be reviewed every five years. 
The monitoring strategy must also provide for additional monitoring 
sites if the IMPROVE network is not sufficient to determine whether 
RPGs will be met.
    The SIP must also provide for the following:
     Procedures for using monitoring data and other information 
in a state with mandatory Class I areas to determine the contribution 
of emissions from within the state to regional haze visibility 
impairment at Class I areas both within and outside the state;
     Procedures for using monitoring data and other information 
in a state with no mandatory Class I areas to determine the 
contribution of emissions from within the state to regional haze 
visibility impairment at Class I areas in other states;
     Reporting of all visibility monitoring data to the 
Administrator at least annually for each Class I area in the state, and 
where possible, in electronic format;
     Developing a statewide inventory of emissions of 
pollutants that are reasonably anticipated to cause or contribute to 
visibility impairment in any Class I area. The inventory must include 
emissions for a baseline year, emissions for the most recent year for 
which data are available, and estimates of future projected emissions. 
A state must also make a commitment to update the inventory 
periodically; and
     Other elements, including reporting, recordkeeping, and 
other measures necessary to assess and report on visibility.
    The RHR requires control strategies to cover an initial 
implementation period extending to the year 2018, with a comprehensive 
reassessment and revision of those strategies, as appropriate, every 10 
years thereafter. Periodic SIP revisions must meet the core 
requirements of section 51.308(d) with the exception of BART. The 
requirement to evaluate sources for BART applies only to the first 
regional haze SIP. Facilities subject to BART must continue to comply 
with the BART provisions of section 51.308(e), as noted above. Periodic 
SIP revisions will assure that the statutory requirement of reasonable 
progress will continue to be met. Each state also is required to submit 
a report to EPA every five years that evaluates progress toward 
achieving the RPG for each Class I area within the state and outside 
the state if affected by emissions from within the state. 40 CFR 
51.308(g). The first progress report is due five years from submittal 
of the initial regional haze SIP revision. At the same time a 5-year 
progress report is submitted, a state must determine the adequacy of 
its existing SIP to achieve the established goals for visibility 
improvement. See 40 CFR 51.308(h).

III. EPA's Analysis of Oregon Regional Haze SIP

A. Affected Class I Areas

    There are twelve mandatory Class I areas, or portions of such 
areas, within Oregon: Mt. Hood Wilderness, Mt. Jefferson Wilderness, 
Mt. Washington Wilderness, Three Sisters Wilderness, Diamond Peak 
Wilderness, Crater Lake National Park, Mountain Lakes Wilderness, 
Gearhart Mountain Wilderness, Kalmiopsis Wilderness, Strawberry 
Mountain Wilderness, and Eagle Cap Wilderness, are all within Oregon 
State borders. Hells Canyon Wilderness Area is a shared Class I area 
with Idaho. See 40 CFR 81.410. Oregon is responsible for developing 
reasonable progress goals for the Class I areas in Oregon and, through 
agreement with Idaho, is also responsible for developing the reasonable 
progress goals for the Hells Canyon Class I area. Oregon reviewed 
interstate transport of haze pollutants with neighboring states, 
focusing on source apportionment information to identify visibility 
impacts in Oregon and neighboring state Class I areas. Oregon consulted 
with Washington, Idaho, California and Nevada. See the Oregon Regional 
Haze SIP submittal, chapter 13, section 13.2; see, also the WRAP 
Technical Support Document, February 28, 2011 \7\ (WRAP TSD) supporting 
this action and 76 FR 38997.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ EPA evaluated the technical work products of the WRAP used 
by Oregon in support of this Regional Haze SIP submittal. The 
results of that evaluation are included in the document ``WRAP 
Technical Support Document'' or WRAP TSD.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Oregon SIP submittal addresses the eleven Class I areas that 
are completely within the State border, the Class I area with shared 
jurisdiction with Oregon and Idaho, and the visibility impacts of 
Oregon sources on Class I areas in neighboring states.

B. Baseline and Natural Conditions

    EPA previously evaluated and approved Oregon's determination of 
baseline and natural conditions for all eleven Class I areas in Oregon. 
See 76 FR 12651 (March 8, 2011) and 76 FR 38997 (July 5, 2011) 
(proposed and final rule respectively). The discussion of baseline and 
natural conditions in those Federal Register notices is relevant when 
evaluating the State's Reasonable Progress Goals which we are proposing 
to approve today. Thus, the discussion below summarizes EPA's previous 
explanation of the baseline and natural conditions in Oregon's Class I 
areas.
    Oregon established baseline and natural visibility conditions as 
well as the URP to achieve natural visibility

[[Page 30459]]

conditions in 2064 for all eleven of the Class I areas wholly within 
its borders. The SIP submittal also included these conditions for Hells 
Canyon Wilderness Area, as determined by WRAP and established by Oregon 
and Idaho.
    Baseline visibility was calculated from monitoring data collected 
by IMPROVE monitors for the most-impaired (20% worst) days and the 
least-impaired (20% best) days. Oregon used the WRAP derived natural 
visibility conditions. In general, WRAP based their natural condition 
estimates on EPA guidance; Guidance for Estimating Natural Visibility 
Conditions Under the Regional Haze Program (EPA-45/B-03-0005 September 
2003) but incorporated refinements which EPA believes provides results 
more appropriate for western states than the general EPA default 
approach. See WRAP TSD section 2.E.
    Because individual monitors are used to represent visibility 
conditions for groups of Class I areas in Oregon, not every Class I 
area in Oregon has an IMPROVE monitor. Specifically, the Oregon Class I 
areas are segregated into six groups. These groups, and Class I areas 
they contain, are:
     North Cascades: Mt. Hood Wilderness Area.
     Central Cascades: Mt. Jefferson, Mt. Washington, and Three 
Sisters Wilderness Areas.
     Southern Cascades: Crater Lake National Park, Diamond 
Peak, Mountain Lakes, and Gearhart Wilderness Areas.
     Coast Range: Kalmiopsis Wilderness Area.
     Eastern Oregon: Strawberry Mountain and Eagle Cap 
Wilderness Areas.
     Eastern Oregon/Western Idaho: Hells Canyon Wilderness 
Area.
    Visibility conditions on the 20% worst days during the 2000-04 
baseline period for each group of Class I areas were determined to be:
     North Cascades--14.9 dv.
     Central Cascades--15.3 dv.
     Southern Cascades--13.7 dv.
     Coast Range--15.5 dv.
     Eastern Oregon--18.6 dv.
     Eastern Oregon/Western Idaho--18.6 dv.
    Visibility conditions on the 20% best days during the 2000-04 
baseline period for each group of Class I areas were determined to be:
     North Cascades--2.2 dv.
     Central Cascades--3.0 dv.
     Southern Cascades--1.7 dv.
     Coast Range--6.3 dv.
     Eastern Oregon--4.5 dv.
     Eastern Oregon/Western Idaho--5.5 dv.
    Natural visibility conditions on the 20% worst days for each group 
of Class I areas were determined to be:
     Northern Cascades--8.4 dv.
     Central Cascades--8.8 dv.
     Southern Cascades--7.6 dv.
     Coast Range--9.4 dv.
     Eastern Oregon--8.9 dv.
     Eastern Oregon/Western Idaho--8.3 dv.

C. Oregon Emission Inventory

    EPA previously evaluated and approved Oregon's emissions inventory 
of pollutants that impact the twelve Class I areas in Oregon, as well 
as the impacts of emissions from Oregon BART-eligible sources on nearby 
Class I in other states. See 76 FR 12651 and 76 FR 38997. Below is a 
summary of emission inventories of the most significant visibility 
impairing pollutants in Oregon, which are SO2, 
NOX, and organic carbon. These pollutants, and their 
visibility impacts, were explained in more detail in the notices for 
the previous rulemaking.
    Point sources in Oregon account for 39% of total state-wide 
SO2 emissions. The most significant point sources are coal-
fired electrical generation units. Area sources (such as Pacific 
offshore shipping, wood combustion, and natural gas combustion) 
contribute about 21% to Oregon statewide SO2 emissions. On-
road mobile and off-road mobile sources contribute a combined total of 
21% of the Oregon SO2 emissions. On-road mobile sources 
account for 43% of the total NOX statewide emissions in 
Oregon, and off-road mobile sources account for 21% of the 
NOX. Natural fire accounts for 11% of the NOX, 
and point sources account for 10% of the NOX emissions. Most 
of the organic carbon emissions in Oregon are from natural fire, which 
fluctuate greatly from year to year. For 2002, about 68% of statewide 
organic carbon emissions in Oregon were due to natural fire. 
Anthropogenic fire (prescribed fire, agricultural field burning, and 
outdoor residential burning) accounts for 9% of the statewide organic 
carbon emissions.

D. Sources of Visibility Impairment in Oregon Class I Areas

    Oregon used a two step process to identify the contribution of each 
source or source category to existing visibility impairment. First, 
ambient pollutant concentrations by species (sulfate, nitrate, organic 
carbon, fine particulate, etc) were determined from the IMPROVE sampler 
representing each Class I area. These concentrations were then used to 
determine the extinction coefficient for each pollutant species 
according to the updated IMPROVE algorithm. Extinction was then 
converted to deciview values, the required visibility metric identified 
in the RHR. Second, appropriate modeling tools were used to determine 
which source categories contributed to the ambient concentrations of 
each pollutant species in each Class I area. Thus, impairment was 
distributed by source category.
    The WRAP and Western States selected the Comprehensive Air Quality 
Model with Extensions (CAMx) in conjunction with PM Source 
Apportionment Technology (PSAT) first to determine source contribution 
to ambient sulfate and nitrate concentrations and then to decide which 
geographic source regions contribute to haze at specific Class I areas. 
The second modeling tool used by WRAP was the Weighted Emissions 
Potential (WEP) model, which was used primarily as a screening tool to 
determine the contribution of ambient organic carbon, elemental carbon, 
PM2.5, and coarse PM concentrations to visibility impairment 
in Oregon Class I areas. Description of these tools, their use and 
evaluation of them are described in more detail in section 6 of the 
WRAP TSD. Below is a summary of the source categories that contribute 
to the SO2, NOX, and organic carbon, which cause 
the most significant visibility impairment in Class I areas in Oregon.
    The results of the PSAT and WEP modeling show that sources of 
visibility impairment in the Oregon Class I area vary significantly by 
location. The PSAT results show that the 20% worst days during 2000-
2004 in the North and Central Cascades Class I areas are mostly 
impacted by sulfate from a combination of SO2 point, area, 
and mobile sources in Washington and Oregon, and marine shipping in the 
Pacific offshore region. Most of the sulfate impacting the Southern 
Cascade Class I areas is from point sources in Oregon, Washington, 
California, and Canada. Pacific offshore shipping is also a substantial 
contributor of sulfate to this area. The most significant sources of 
sulfate to the only coastal Oregon Class I area (Kalmiopsis Wilderness 
Area) are natural fires in Oregon, and marine shipping in the Pacific 
Ocean. For the 20% worst days in Eastern Oregon Class I areas, the 
contribution of sulfates from each geographical area is relatively low, 
with the largest contribution being from point sources from Canada, 
Washington, and Oregon. See Oregon Regional Haze SIP submittal Figures 
9.2.1-1 through Figures 9.2.1-6.
    The PSAT results for nitrate show that a majority of the nitrate 
impacting the

[[Page 30460]]

North and Central Cascades Class I areas is from mobile sources in 
Oregon and Washington. For the 20% worst days in Southern Cascades, the 
most significant sources of nitrate are mobile sources in California, 
Oregon and Washington. A majority of the nitrate impacting the 
Kalmiopsis Wilderness Area is from mobile sources in Oregon and from 
marine shipping in the Pacific Ocean. The visibility on the 20% worst 
days in the Eastern Oregon Class I areas is significantly impacted by a 
combination of point, area, and mobile NOX sources in Idaho, 
Oregon and Washington. See Oregon Regional Haze SIP submittal Figures 
9.2.2-1 through Figures 9.2.2-6.
    Based on the WEP model results, the organic carbon in the North 
Cascades area on the 20% worst visibility days comes mostly from area 
sources and natural fires in Oregon, with a small contribution from 
areas sources in Washington. For the 20% worst visibility days in the 
Central Cascades areas, most of the organic carbon comes from a 
combination of area source emissions and natural and anthropogenic fire 
in Oregon. For the 20% worst visibility days in the Southern Cascades 
area, approximately 90% of the organic carbon contribution came from 
natural fires in 2002. For the 20% worst visibility days in the 
Kalmiopsis Wilderness area, almost all of the organic carbon for the 
2002 base year came from natural fire. For the 20% worst visibility 
days in the Eastern Oregon Class I areas, most of the organic carbon 
contribution came from a combination of natural fires and anthropogenic 
fires in Idaho and Oregon.
    In its previous final rulemaking EPA found that Oregon had 
appropriately identified the primary pollutants impacting its Class I 
areas, and that the SIP contains an appropriate analysis of the impact 
these pollutants have on visibility in the Class I areas in Oregon. See 
76 FR 38997.

E. Best Available Retrofit Technology

    EPA previously reviewed and approved Oregon's BART determinations 
for all sources subject to BART in Oregon. See 76 FR 38997. As 
explained in the Federal Register notice approving the State's 
determinations, BART was determined for one source, the PGE Boardman 
Electric Generating Unit (EGU), and Federally Enforceable Permit Limits 
(FEPLs) were established for four BART-eligible sources to reduce 
visibility impacts at any Class I area below the 0.5 dv subject to 
BART-subject threshold. These four sources are:
     PGE Beaver EGU
     Georgia Pacific Wauna Mill
     International Paper, Springfield
     Amalgamated Sugar Plant, Nyssa
    In summary, the emission limits established through FEPLs for the 
above four sources were achieved through the following methods.
    1. PGE Beaver EGU: To achieve the emission limits established in 
the Title V permit, the facility is using ultra-low sulfur diesel fuel 
(with no more than 0.0015% sulfur) in its oil-fired BART eligible 
units. The source must also use only ``pipe line quality'' natural gas 
in the gas-fueled PWEU1 unit.
    2. Georgia Pacific Wauna Mill: To achieve the emission limits 
established in the Title V permit, the mill has reduced its 
SO2 emissions by (1) permanently reducing use of fuel oil in 
the Power Boiler, (2) discontinuing the use of fuel oil in the Lime 
Kiln until the Non-Condensable Gas Incinerator (NCGI) unit is shut 
down, and (3) limiting pulp production rate to 1,030 tons per day until 
the NCGI unit is shut down, at which time production rate will be 
limited to 1,350 tons per day.
    3. International Paper, Springfield: To achieve the emission limits 
established in its Title V permit, the plant has reduced its emissions 
of SO2, NOX, and PM by accepting limits on fuel 
usage and operation, and meeting a combined SO2 and 
NOX daily emission limit based on a plant fuel use specific 
formula. The permit requires this facility to include the package 
boiler (EU-150B) emissions when demonstrating compliance with condition 
210 of the permit until the source submits a notice of completion of 
No. 4 recovery boiler mud and steam drum replacement.
    4. Amalgamated Sugar Plant, Nyssa: This plant is currently shutdown 
and has no identified date to resume operations. In the event this 
source resumes operation in the future, ODEQ will require that this 
facility be subject to a FEPL in its Title V permit, or conduct a BART 
analysis and install BART prior to resuming operation.
    The PGE EGU near Boardman, Oregon is a coal-fired power plant 
capable of producing about 617 MW of electricity constructed between 
1962 and 1977, and based on 2005 actual emissions data, emitted about 
12,000 tons of SO2, 8,300 tons of NOX, and 880 
tons of particulate matter (PM) that year. ODEQ determined BART for 
this source to be 0.23 lbs/mmBtu for NOX based on a new low-
NOX burner/modified overfire air system, 0.40 lbs/mmBtu for 
SO2 based on initial operational efficiency of a new Direct 
Sorbent Injection System, and 0.40 lb/mmBtu for PM, based on the 
current PM emission limit for the existing electrostatic precipitation 
system. The BART rule for this facility requires that the Foster 
Wheeler boiler at the facility permanently cease burning coal by no 
later than December 31, 2020. OAR 340-223-0030(1)(e).

F. Reasonable Progress Goals

1. Determination of Reasonable Progress Goals
    The RHR requires States to show ``reasonable progress'' toward 
natural visibility conditions over the time period of the SIP, with 
2018 as the first milestone year. The RHR at 40 CFR 51.308(d)(1) also 
requires that the State establish a goal, expressed in deciviews (dv), 
for each Class I area within the State that provides for reasonable 
progress towards achieving natural visibility conditions by 2064. As 
such the State must establish an RPG for each Class I area that 
provides for visibility improvement for the most-impaired (20% worst) 
days and ensures no degradation in visibility for the least-impaired 
(20% best) days in 2018.
    RPGs are estimates of the progress to be achieved by 2018 through 
implementation of the LTS which includes anticipated emission 
reductions from all State and Federal regulatory requirements 
implemented between the baseline and 2018, including, but not limited 
to, BART and any additional controls for non-BART sources or emission 
activities including any Federal requirements that reduce visibility 
impairing pollutants. As explained above, the rate needed to achieve 
natural conditions by 2064 is referred to as the uniform rate of 
progress or URP.
    If the State establishes a reasonable progress goal that provides 
for a slower rate of improvement than the rate that would be needed to 
attain natural conditions by 2064, the State must demonstrate based on 
the factors in 51.308(d)(1)(i)(A), that the rate of progress for the 
implementation plan to attain natural conditions by 2064 is not 
reasonable; and the progress goal adopted by the State is reasonable. 
The State must provide an assessment of the number of years it would 
take to attain natural conditions if visibility continues at the rate 
of progress selected by the State. 40 CFR 51.308(d)(B)(ii).
    The primary tool relied upon by Oregon for determining regional 
haze improvements by 2018 and for establishing the RPGs, was the CMAQ 
modeling conducted by WRAP. The CMAQ model was used to estimate 2018 
visibility conditions in Oregon, based on application of the regional 
haze strategies included in this plan. WRAP developed CMAQ modeling 
inputs,

[[Page 30461]]

including annual meteorology and emissions inventories for: (1) A 2002 
actual emissions base case, (2) a planning case to represent the 2000-
04 regional haze baseline period using averages for key emissions 
categories, and (3) a projected 2018 case to determine improvements 
achievable by 2018. EPA approves the use of the CMAQ model to determine 
future visibility conditions in Oregon Class I areas. A more detailed 
description of the CMAQ modeling performed by WRAP can be found in the 
WRAP TSD for this action.
    To determine the 2018 RPGs for its Class I areas, ODEQ followed the 
eleven steps described below:
    1. Compare baseline conditions to natural conditions. For each 
Class I area, ODEQ identified baseline (2000-2004) visibility and 
natural conditions in 2064, for the 20% worst and best days.
    2. Identify the Uniform Rate of Progress for achieving natural 
conditions on the 20% worst days. For each Class I area, ODEQ 
calculated the URP glide path from baseline to 2064, including the 2018 
planning milestone, for the 20% worst days.
    3. Identify contributing pollutant species. For each Class I area, 
ODEQ identified the pollutant species that are contributing to 
visibility impairment on during the 2000-2004 baseline 20% worst and 
20% best days.
    4. Identify major emission sources within the State. Using the WRAP 
Emission Inventory for 2002 and 2018, ODEQ identified statewide 
emissions by source category and pollutant, and identified projected 
emission trends from current (2002) to the 2018 planning milestone.
    5. Identify the larger emission sources contributing to visibility 
impairment. For each Class I area, ODEQ identified the relative 
contribution of anthropogenic and non-anthropogenic sources in Oregon 
and neighboring states to the 20% worst and best days, using monitoring 
data, and source apportionment and modeling results.
    6. Document the emission reductions from BART. ODEQ described the 
results of the BART process, and identified the emission reductions 
that will be achieved from BART and from FEPLs taken by sources so that 
they are no longer subject to BART.
    7. Identify projected visibility change in 2018 from ``on-the-
books'' controls and BART. For each Class I area, ODEQ determined the 
visibility improvement expected in 2018 from on-the-books controls and 
BART, using the WRAP CMAQ modeling results, for the 20% worst and best 
days.
    8. Identify sources or source categories that are major 
contributors and apply the four- factor analysis. As a result of the 
analysis under step 5 above, for each Class I area, ODEQ determined key 
pollutant species and source categories that could have the greatest 
impact on visibility in Oregon Class I areas, and analyzed these 
sources using the four-factor analysis.
    9. Describe the results of the four-factor analysis. ODEQ conducted 
a four-factor analysis on the major Oregon source emission categories 
using the following factors: Cost of compliance, time necessary for 
compliance, energy and non-air quality environmental impacts of 
compliance, and remaining useful life of any potentially affected 
sources.
    10. Set the RPGs based on the above steps. ODEQ set the RPGs for 
each Class I area in deciviews, based on expected improvements by 2018 
for the 20% worst and 20% best days, due to on-the-books controls, 
BART, and the results of the four-factor analysis on major source 
categories.
    11. Compare RPG to the 2018 URP milestone and provide an 
affirmative demonstration that reasonable progress is being made. For 
each Class I area, ODEQ compared the RPG developed in step 10 to the 
2018 URP milestone and provided an affirmative demonstration that 
reasonable progress is being made.
    After considering each of the factors described above, Oregon 
established RPGs for each of its mandatory Class I areas. The 
visibility projections were based on estimates of emissions reductions 
from all existing and known controls resulting from Federal and state 
CAA programs as of December 2010. Oregon's RPGs for its 12 Class I 
areas are shown in Table 1 below.

                                                     Table 1--2018 RPGs for Class I Areas in Oregon
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                          20% Worst days                    Years from             20% Best days
                                                         ------------------------------------------------   baseline to  -------------------------------
                                                                                                              attain
              Region                 Oregon class I area     Baseline      2018 Uniform        2018           natural                          2018
                                                             condition        rate of       Reasonable     conditions at     Baseline       reasonable
                                                               (dv)        progress (dv)  progress  goal    reasonable    condition (dv)  progress  goal
                                                                                               (dv)          progress                          (dv)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Northern Cascades.................  Mt. Hood Wilderness             14.9            13.4            13.8              87             2.2             2.0
                                     Area.
Central Cascades..................  Mt. Jefferson, Mt.              15.3            13.8            14.3              93             3.0             2.9
                                     Washington, and
                                     Three Sisters
                                     Wilderness Areas.
Southern Cascades.................  Diamond Peak,                   13.7            12.3            13.4             287             1.8             1.5
                                     Mountain Lakes, and
                                     Gearhart Mountain
                                     Wilderness Areas
                                     and Crater Lake
                                     National Park.
Coast Range.......................  Kalmiopsis                      15.5            14.1            15.1             216             6.3             6.1
                                     Wilderness Area.
Eastern Oregon....................  Strawberry Mountain             18.6            16.3            17.5             125             4.5             4.1
                                     and Eagle Cap
                                     Wilderness Areas.
Eastern Oregon/Western Idaho......  Hells Canyon                    18.6            16.2            16.6              74             5.5             4.7
                                     Wilderness Area.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 SIP submission Table 11.4.2-2 as supplemented by May 7, 2012 letter from ODEQ.

2. Demonstration of Reasonable Progress
    Oregon recognized that based on the results of the CMAQ modeling, 
none of the Class I areas in Oregon are expected to achieve the URP for 
2018. Nevertheless, Oregon concludes that the goals it established for 
each of the Class I areas for the first planning cycle are reasonable, 
and no additional controls are reasonable at this time. Oregon believes 
that these RPGs are justified and ``reasonable'' based on the following 
considerations: (1) Findings of the four-factor analysis which 
evaluated controls on major source categories that impact visibility in 
Class I areas in Oregon, (2) substantial future emission reductions 
from the PGE Boardman EGU, initially due to BART emission limits in 
place by 2014, and then further reductions in emissions from this 
facility when it ceases to burn coal by the end of 2020, (3) evidence 
that emissions from natural sources (primarily wildfires) significantly 
impact visibility in the Class I areas and adversely affect Oregon's 
ability to reach the 2018 URP goal, (4) evidence that offshore marine 
shipping emissions

[[Page 30462]]

significantly impact visibility in the Class I areas and adversely 
affect Oregon's ability to meet the 2018 URP goal in these Class I 
areas, and (5) ODEQ's demonstration that it will achieve significant 
reductions of SO2 and NOX emissions from 
anthropogenic sources in Oregon, primarily due to major reductions in 
mobile source emissions of SO2 and NOX by 2018. 
See Oregon Regional Haze SIP submission section 11.4.1 for additional 
detail. These five factors, and how they were considered, are 
summarized in the following paragraphs.
    Findings of the Four-Factor Analysis: ODEQ based its analysis on 
the WRAP four-factor analysis for Oregon, and focused on the largest 
anthropogenic point and areas sources that have the greatest projected 
amounts of SOX and NOX emissions in each source 
category in 2018. Based on the emissions inventory, ODEQ identified the 
following source categories as being the largest SOX and 
NOX emitters: External Combustion Boilers; Stationary Source 
Fuel Combustion; Industrial Processes; Internal Combustion Engines; 
Agricultural Orchard Heaters; and Waste Disposal, Treatment, and 
Recovery. The annual SO2 and NOX emissions from 
each of these categories are shown in Table 2.

                                   Table 2--Oregon's Largest Source Categories
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Pollutant                        Type             Source category        Extent of  contribution
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SO2................................  Point................  External Combustion    858 tons/year.
                                                             Boilers.
                                     Point................  Industrial Processes.  377 tons/year.
                                     Area.................  Stationary Source      5,699 tons/year.
                                                             Fuel Combustion.
                                     Area.................  Misc. (Agriculture     2,243 tons/year.
                                                             Orchard Heaters).
NOX................................  Point................  External Combustion    4,995 tons/year.
                                                             Boilers.
                                     Point................  Industrial Processes.  3,639 tons/year.
                                     Point................  Internal Combustion    3,688 tons/year.
                                                             Engines.
                                     Area.................  Stationary Source      13,454 tons/year.
                                                             Fuel Combustion.
                                     Area.................  Waste Disposal,        2,881 tons/year.
                                                             Treatment, and
                                                             Recovery.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    ODEQ's four-factor analysis for each source category is summarized 
below:
    a. External Boilers: This source category consists of point sources 
with emissions totaling 858 tons per year (tpy) of SO2 and 
4,995 of NOX. Technically feasible NOX emission 
control technologies for external boilers included Overfire Air, 
Selective Non-Catalytic Reduction and Selective Catalytic Reduction. 
See section 11.3.3.1 of the SIP submittal for additional detail 
regarding the State's analysis of this source category.
    b. Industrial Processes: This source category consists of 
SO2 and NOX point sources, with emissions 
totaling 377 tpy of SO2 and 3,639 tpy of NOX In 
this category, ODEQ focused on cement manufacturing, which is the only 
sizable subcategory in this category, with about 57% of the 
NOX in the Industrial Processes category. See section 
11.3.3.1, Industrial Processes table and section 11.3.3.3 of the SIP 
submittal for additional detail regarding the State's analysis of this 
source category.
    c. Stationary Source Fuel Combustion: This source category consists 
of area sources, with emissions totaling 5,699 tpy of SO2 
and 13,354 tpy of NOX The largest subcategory in this 
category is residential wood and natural gas combustion (6,642 tpy of 
NOX, combined). These represent the woodstoves and home 
heating devices found throughout Oregon. ODEQ's residential wood 
heating rules in OAR 340, Division 262, require that only certified 
woodstoves can be sold in the state. As a result of these current 
federally enforceable state requirements and programs for residential 
wood heating, ODEQ did not conduct a four-factor analysis for this 
subcategory. ODEQ also found that the low emissions generated by 
natural gas home heating devices did not warrant further analysis. The 
remaining sizeable subcategories were industrial and commercial/
institutional combustion, involving mostly natural gas and distillate 
oil. ODEQ believes that emissions from these subcategories come from 
smaller generators and engines. The control options available for 
stationary sources burning natural gas are very limited, since this 
fuel already produces very low emissions, and there are no cost-
effective post-combustion controls for this category of sources. As a 
result of its review of this source category, ODEQ did not believe a 
detailed four-factor analysis was appropriate, and that such a review 
would not identify any cost effective controls. See section 11.3.3.2 of 
the SIP submittal for additional detail regarding the State's analysis 
of this source category.
    d. Waste Disposal, Treatment, and Recovery: This source category 
consists of NOX area sources with emissions totaling 2,881 
tpy. ODEQ found that the largest source within this category is 
residential open burning, which like agricultural and forestry burning 
is not suitable for applying the four-factor analysis because there are 
no feasible emission control technologies for these types of sources. 
However, as discussed below, ODEQ intends to conduct an evaluation of 
residential open burning to determine the extent of the contribution to 
visibility impairment, and the need for emission reductions, as part of 
the LTS of this plan (See chapter 12, section 12.6.3 of the SIP 
submittal).
    e. Agricultural Orchard Heaters: This source category consists of 
SO2 area sources with emissions totaling 2,243 tpy. ODEQ 
found that a four-factor analysis was not appropriate for this category 
of sources for the following reasons: (1) ODEQ's confidence in the 
emissions estimates from orchard heaters is very low, (2) these heaters 
are used only intermittently, to prevent frost damage for selected 
crops in diverse regions of the state, and the probability that the 
intermittent use and spatial distribution of this source is a sizeable 
contributor to Class I area impairment is extremely low, and (3) few 
cost effective control options are available for this type of source. 
See section 11.3.3.5 of the SIP submittal for additional detail 
regarding the State's analysis of this source category.
    f. Internal Combustion Engines: This source category consists of 
NOX point sources with emissions totaling 3,688 tpy. This 
source category consists of two types of engines: (1) Natural gas fired 
reciprocating internal combustion engines, and (2) natural gas fired 
turbines that are compressors, combustors, or power turbines. Emissions 
from internal combustion engines vary from engine to engine, model to 
model, and mode of operation. ODEQ found that there was no currently 
available information on this source

[[Page 30463]]

category that would allow a four-factor analysis. Given the relatively 
low emissions represented by this source category, and the unknown 
level of contribution to visibility impairment, ODEQ decided not to 
conduct any further analysis on this source category. See section 
11.3.3.6 of the SIP submittal for additional detail regarding the 
State's analysis of this source category.
    As the purpose of the reasonable progress analysis is to evaluate 
the potential of controlling certain sources or source categories to 
address visibility from manmade sources, the four-factor analysis 
conducted by Oregon addressed only anthropogenic sources on the 
assumption that the focus should be on sources that could be 
controlled. Thus, in its evaluation of potential sources or source 
categories for reasonable progress, the state primarily evaluated 
controls on point sources. Oregon determined that the key pollutants 
contributing to visibility impairment from sources in Oregon are 
SO2, NOX, and organic carbon. The State 
determined that the major source of organic carbon was natural fire, 
and after reviewing the WRAP modeling results, Oregon found that PM 
emissions from point sources only contribute a minimal amount to the 
visibility impairment in the Oregon Class I areas. Therefore, for this 
initial planning period, Oregon focused on SO2 and 
NOX controls for point source emissions. Based on its 
evaluation, Oregon concluded that little gain would be achieved from 
further reduction in SO2 and NOX from point 
sources in Oregon, and therefore concluded it is not reasonable to 
require controls for these source categories at this time. See Chapter 
11.3 of the Oregon SIP submittal.
    Substantial emission reductions From the PGE Boardman EGU: ODEQ 
projects that there will be a total SO2 and NOX 
emission reduction of 9,944 tpy from the PGE Boardman facility when 
BART emission controls are fully implemented by July 2014. These 
reductions will result in an additional visibility improvement of 2.4 
dv in the Mt. Hood Class I area, and an additional cumulative 
visibility improvement of 16.2 dv in all 14 Class I areas impacted by 
this source. By 2018, there will be an additional reduction of 2,400 
tpy of SO2 when the reasonable progress controls (Direct 
Sorbent Injection-phase 2) are implemented, resulting in an additional 
2.3 dv of cumulative improvement. By the end of 2020, when Boardman 
permanently ceases to burn coal, there will be an additional combined 
SO2 and NOX reduction of 12,877 tpy, resulting in 
an additional 13.0 dv cumulative improvement in all 14 Class I areas. 
See appendix D-7 of the Oregon Regional Haze SIP submittal.
    Significant contribution to visibility impairment from natural 
sources: The emission data in Chapter 8 of the SIP submittal 
demonstrate that there are major contributions of Organic Carbon (OC), 
Elemental Carbon (EC), PM2.5, and coarse particulate matter 
(coarse PM) from wildfires and windblown dust to the total state 
inventory for these species. In 2002, OC from wildfires constituted 69% 
of the total state's OC emission inventory, and EC from wildfires 
constituted 61% of the state's EC emission inventory. Also in 2002, 
windblown dust constituted 26% of the Oregon's total PM2.5 
inventory, and constituted 61% of the coarse PM inventory. Based on 
CMAQ modeling results shown in Chapter 9 of the SIP submittal, OC and 
PM2.5 from wildfires, and PM2.5 and coarse PM 
from windblown dust, had significant to substantial impacts on 
visibility in Oregon Class I areas on the 20% worst days in 2002. The 
contribution of natural fires to visibility impairment from OC in 
Oregon Class I areas ranges from about 15% at the Mt. Hood Class I area 
to about 95% at the Kalmiopsis Class I area. Windblown dust and 
wildfires combined contribute from about 10% to 90% of the 
PM2.5 measured ambient air concentrations in the Oregon 
Class I areas, and windblown dust and wildfires combined contribute 
from about 30% to 95% of the coarse PM measured in Oregon Class I 
areas. Since the emissions from these natural sources are 
uncontrollable, and are projected to remain at 2002 baseline levels 
through 2018, emissions from these sources will continue to have major 
visibility impacts on Oregon Class I areas, prevent visibility 
improvement from achieving the URP, and increase the percent 
contribution to visibility impairment from uncontrolled sources as 
concentrations of pollutants from controlled sources decrease.
    Evidence that offshore marine shipping emissions affect ability to 
meet the 2018 URP goal: ODEQ found that marine vessel emissions 
(primarily SO2 and NOX) are a significant 
contributor to haze in Oregon Class I areas, and significantly affect 
Oregon's ability to meet its 2018 URP milestones. The PSAT and WEP 
results in the Oregon SIP submittal Chapter 9 show that offshore marine 
emissions are a significant contributor to visibility impairment in the 
Kalmiopsis Class I area and the seven Oregon Class I areas in the 
Cascade Mountains. Marine vessel emissions are included in the 
``Pacific offshore'' portion of the pie charts shown in Figures 9.2.1-1 
through 9.2.1-5 of the SIP submittal. According to the emission 
inventory in Chapter 8 of the Oregon SIP submittal, marine vessel 
emissions constitute 56% of the total SO2 and 31% of the 
total NOX inventory for the State of Oregon for 2002. As 
discussed further in the long term strategy portion of the submittal, 
Oregon has only limited ability to regulate offshore marine emissions 
and the Pacific offshore marine vessel emissions are currently beyond 
Oregon's regulatory authority.
    ODEQ's determination that it will achieve significant reductions of 
SO2 and NOX emissions by 2018: Oregon explained 
that it will achieve significant reduction of SO2 and 
NOX emissions from anthropogenic sources in Oregon by 2018, 
primarily due to existing Federal rules that control SO2 and 
NOX emissions from mobile sources. See section 11.4.3 of the 
SIP submittal. Based on the WEP analyses of SO2 and 
NOX emissions in 2018, SO2 emissions from sources 
upwind of the Class I areas in Oregon are projected to decrease by 33% 
to 46%, and upwind emissions of NOX are projected to 
decrease by 28% to 48% on the 20% worst days compared to the 2002 
baseline. These results are shown in Tables 11.4.2-2 and 11.4.2-3 of 
the SIP submittal. As a result of this reduction in SO2 and 
NOX emissions, the CMAQ regional visibility modeling results 
project a 4% to 18% improvement in visibility in Oregon Class I areas 
due to reductions in SO2 emissions, and projects a 27% to 
58% improvement in visibility in the Oregon Class I areas from 
reductions in NO2 emissions. See section 11.4.2 of the SIP 
submittal.
3. EPA's Determination Whether the SIP Meets 40 CFR 51.308(d)(1)
    In a previous action, EPA approved Oregon's determination of 
baseline and natural visibility conditions in each Class I area in 
Oregon. See 76 FR 38997. The linear progress from baseline visibility 
to natural visibility in 2064 defines the URP. The `2018 URP' is the 
rate of progress to be achieved by 2018 in order to stay on track to 
achieve natural conditions by 2064. In reviewing the Oregon SIP 
submittal, EPA independently evaluated whether there are reasonable 
control measures available for sources located within Oregon's 
regulatory jurisdiction that would achieve further progress toward 
achieving the 2018 URP.
    We began this evaluation using a screening methodology called ``Q/
d'' to determine which stationary (point) sources would be candidates 
for

[[Page 30464]]

controls under reasonable progress. The value Q/d is the ratio of the 
mathematical sum of actual SO2, NOX and PM 
emissions in tpy, denoted as ``Q'', divided by the distance (in 
kilometers, denoted as ``d'') of the point source to the nearest Class 
I area. A high Q/d would indicate the likelihood of the source causing 
or contributing to impairment in that Class I area.
    To determine the Q/d value that would provide assurance that a 
source would, or would not, cause or contribute to impairment in any 
Class I area, we considered the modeled visibility impacts from the 
CALPUFF modeling used to determine the BART-eligible sources subject to 
BART in EPA Region 10 and the distance of the source to the nearest 
Class I area. There were 19 BART-eligible sources used in this 
analysis. See memorandum to the files from Keith Rose, EPA Region 10, 
dated March 21, 2012, for this analysis. All sources with a Q/d ratio 
of less than 26.1 had visibility impacts of less than 0.5 dv. The 
resultant average of the range is about 0.3 dv, which is more 
conservative than the 0.5 dv that was used in determining which sources 
would be subject-to-BART under the federal BART regulations. Since the 
threshold is more conservative than the subject-to-BART threshold, we 
believe that a Q/d value of 20 is reasonable for determining which 
point sources the State should consider for the reasonable progress 
analysis.
    Next, EPA determined the Q/d ratio at all non-BART point sources in 
Oregon based on information in the EPA National Emission Inventory 
database for emissions for point sources in 2005. Based on the 2005 EPA 
National Emission Inventory Database, six of the largest non-BART point 
sources and their Q/d values are: Roseburg Forest Products (16.9 Q/d), 
Co-Gen Co. LLC (15.5 Q/d), Gas Transmission Northwest Corporation (14.0 
Q/d), Weyerhaeuser Company, Albany (13.1 Q/d), Boise Cascade 
Corporation, La Grande (12.7 Q/d), and Boise Cascade Corporation, Elgin 
(11.5 Q/d). Since all of these sources have Q/d values below 20, EPA 
believes that their impacts on nearby Class I areas are expected to be 
less than 0.5 dv. Thus, EPA agrees with Oregon's conclusion that 
additional controls of non-BART point sources for reasonable progress 
purposes are not reasonable in the first planning period, because even 
though there are cost effective controls identified, visibility 
improvement is anticipated to be relatively small.
    EPA also considered control measures for anthropogenic fire 
(prescribed forest fire and agricultural fire). Oregon already operates 
a robust enhanced smoke management program for prescribed forest fire 
and agricultural burning (see description of Oregon's smoke management 
and agricultural burning programs in section G.5 below). There are no 
other source categories of smoke that appear to emit visibility 
impairing pollutants sufficient to warrant consideration for additional 
control at this time.
    In regard to the impact of offshore marine shipping emissions, ODEQ 
did not consider potential improvements in visibility its Class I areas 
due to amendments adopted by the International Maritime Organization 
(IMO) in October 2008. See http://www.imo.org/blast/mainframe.asp?topic_id=233. These amendments, known as the Annex VI 
amendments specify: (1) New fuel quality requirements for commercial 
marine vessels beginning from July 2010, (2) Tier II and III 
NOX emission standards for new commercial marine engines, 
and (3) Tier I NOX requirements for existing pre-2000 
commercial marine engines. The Annex VI amendments designate waters 
within 200 miles of the North American coast as an emission control 
area, including waters offshore of Oregon. Even though the effects of 
IMO Annex VI amendments were not evaluated in the Oregon SIP submittal, 
EPA believes that visibility impacts from marine vessel emissions will 
decrease by 2018 when the requirements of the Annex VI amendments are 
fully implemented. Because these reductions were not included in the 
CMAQ or WEP analyses conducted by WRAP for Oregon, the specific 
visibility improvements cannot be quantified at this time, but they 
will likely result in further visibility improvements in the Oregon 
Class I areas located near the coast and in the Cascade Mountains.
    As explained in the EPA's RGP Guidance, the 2018 URP estimate is 
not a presumptive target and the State's RPGs may be lesser, greater or 
equivalent to the glide path. The glide path to 2064 represents a rate 
of progress which states must use for analytical comparison to the 
amount of progress they expect to achieve. EPA believes the RPGs 
established by Oregon for the Class I areas in Oregon, although not 
achieving the URP, are reasonable when considering that significant 
visibility improvement is expected from BART controls for Boardman and 
other point sources, additional controls on other point sources and 
other source categories would not result in significant visibility 
improvement, and the significant visibility impacts due to 
uncontrollable natural fire and significant impacts from off shore 
marine emissions. Consequently, we propose to find that the State has 
demonstrated that its 2018 RPGs are reasonable and consistent with 40 
CFR 51.308(d)(1) and 51.308(d)(1)(ii).

G. Long Term Strategy

    The Long Term Strategy (LTS) required by 40 CFR 51.308(d)(3) is a 
compilation of all existing and anticipated new air pollution control 
measures. The LTS must include ``enforceable emission limitations, 
compliance schedules, and other measures as necessary to achieve the 
reasonable progress goals'' for all Class I areas within or affected by 
emissions from the State. 40 CFR 51.308(d)(3). In developing its LTS, 
Oregon considered all the factors required for developing a LTS 
identified in the RHR. These factors included: (1) Ongoing Air 
Pollution Control Programs, (2) Measures to Mitigate Impacts of 
Construction Activities, (3) Emission Limitations and Schedules for 
Compliance, (4) Source Retirement and Replacement Schedules, (5) Smoke 
Management Techniques for Agricultural and Forestry Burning, and (6) 
Enforceability of Emission Limitations and Control Measures. A summary 
of how Oregon is addressing each of these factors in its LTS is 
provided below.
1. Ongoing Air Pollution Control Programs
a. Prevention of Significant Deterioration/New Source Review Rules
    In Oregon, a primary regulatory tool for addressing visibility 
impairment from industrial sources is the Prevention of Significant 
Deterioration (PSD) New Source Review rules. The SIP approved Oregon 
PSD rules protect visibility in Class I areas from new industrial 
sources, and major changes to existing sources, by requiring a 
visibility impact assessment (OAR 340, Division 225). Specifically, OAR 
340-225-0070 describes the process for conducting a visibility impact 
assessment and review by ODEQ, as well as the process for conducting 
modeling to determine visibility impacts, which is used to determine if 
a source causes a significant impairment in any Class I area. Any new 
major source or major modifications within a distance of 300 km of a 
Class I area that are found through modeling to cause significant 
visibility impairment will not be issued an air quality permit by 
Oregon unless the impact is mitigated. The level of significance is 
defined as an increase in

[[Page 30465]]

visibility impairment above natural background of 5%.
b. Reasonably Attributable Visibility Impairment BART
    Oregon has adopted the RAVI BART requirements as part of the Oregon 
Visibility Protection Plan. RAVI specifies that if the Federal Land 
Manager certifies that visibility impairment exists in a federal Class 
I area, Oregon would be required to analyze BART controls and identify 
BART for any contributing source.
c. Oregon's Phase I Visibility Protection Program
    In 1986, Oregon adopted EPA's Phase I Visibility rule into Oregon 
Visibility Protection Plan (OAR 340-200-0040). This rule addresses 
visibility impairment that is ``reasonably attributable'' to one or 
small group of sources, in relatively close proximity to a Class I 
area. The Oregon Visibility Protection Plan contains short and long-
term strategies to address reasonably attributable impairment, 
including PSD new source review rules along with seasonal protection of 
visibility during the summer months from prescribed forestry burning 
and agricultural field burning. Air quality monitoring showed that 
during the summer months in the northern and central Cascades, 
visibility was frequently impaired by smoke or ``plume blight'' from 
Willamette Valley agricultural open field burning and forest prescribed 
burning. Monitoring also demonstrated that there was summer visibility 
impairment in the Eagle Cap Wilderness area caused by Union County 
agricultural open field burning, and that field burning in Jefferson 
County was contributing to summer visibility impairment in the central 
Oregon Cascade Class I areas. As a result, ODEQ adopted specific 
visibility control strategies for these areas into the original plan. 
These included smoke management requirements to avoid Class I 
visibility impacts from Willamette Valley, Jefferson County and Union 
County open field burning, and from forest prescribed burning in parts 
of Western Oregon. The Jefferson and Union County smoke management 
programs adopted provisions to avoid any burning upwind of nearby Class 
I areas. The Oregon Department of Forestry Smoke Management Program was 
revised to shift prescribed burning in Western Oregon from the summer 
to the spring and fall, as part of an effort to eliminate burning 
during the summer. Oregon also explained that it made additional 
revisions and improvements to the Visibility Protection Plan in 2002 as 
part of the Oregon Visibility Protection Plan Reasonable Progress 
Report, March 5, 2002. See SIP Submittal section 12.5.5.1 for 
additional discussion of the Oregon Phase I Visibility Protection 
Program.
d. Implementation of State and Federal Mobile Source regulations
    Mobile source annual emissions show a major decrease in 
NOX and SO2 in Oregon from 2002 to 2018, due to 
numerous ``on the books'' federal mobile source regulations for on-road 
mobile sources as well as non-road mobile sources and equipment. These 
rules are expected to reduce SO2 emissions as well as 
NOX and PM emissions. In 2005, Oregon adopted California's 
emissions standards for light and medium duty vehicles as the Oregon 
Low Emission Vehicle Program. This program took effect beginning with 
2009 model year vehicles. Although the primary purpose was to reduce 
greenhouse gas emissions, these rules will also decrease NOX 
and PM emissions from light and medium duty vehicles. In 2007, the 
Oregon Legislature authorized a clean diesel program that included 
funding for a grant/loan program to retrofit existing diesel engines 
with exhaust controls, repowering non-road diesel engines with 
biodiesel, and scrapping older engines. ODEQ projects that with normal 
turnover bringing new, cleaner engines into the fleet, there will be a 
60% reduction in diesel PM2.5 emissions by 2018.
e. On-Going Implementation of Programs To Meet PM10 NAAQS
    In Oregon there are six communities that are PM10 
maintenance areas and two communities that are nonattainment areas 
under the PM10 NAAQS. All of these communities are located 
within 20 to 50 miles of one or more Class I area, and have the 
potential to impact visibility in these Class I areas. As a result of 
being designated as PM10 nonattainment areas, these 
communities have made significant reductions in PM10 
emissions in the last 10 years by adopting control strategies to reduce 
PM10 emissions from sources such as residential woodstoves 
and outdoor burning. For example, ODEQ's federally enforceable wood-
heating rules (OAR 340, Division 262) require woodstove curtailment 
programs in each of these communities, and specify that only certified 
woodstoves be sold in the state. Oregon's wood-heating rules have been 
very effective in reducing PM10 levels during the heating 
months in these communities.
2. Measures To Mitigate the Impacts of Construction Activities
    Oregon's rules addressing impacts from construction activities are 
primarily found in the OAR 340, Division 208. OAR 340-208-0210 
addresses ``fugitive emissions'' from a variety of sources, and would 
be the most applicable regulation to construction activities. This 
regulation requires ``reasonable precautions'' be taken to prevent 
particulate matter from becoming airborne from activities such as 
construction projects. Actions that can be taken to control particulate 
emissions include the use of water or chemicals to control dust from 
demolition, construction operations, unpaved roads at construction 
sites, and material stockpiles, and containment of sandblasting 
operations.
3. Emission Limitations and Schedules of Compliance
    Emission limits and compliance schedules for stationary sources are 
specified under Oregon and federal regulations in accordance with the 
CAA. Additionally as discussed above, the emission limits and schedules 
of compliance for those sources with BART limits, and sources taking 
FEPLs, are described in Chapter 10 of the SIP submittal and in our 
previous action approving these limits and schedules.
4. Source Retirement and Replacement Schedules
    Oregon's LTS contains an evaluation of non-BART sources, as 
described below. This evaluation will include a review of all existing 
industrial sources to identify scheduled shutdowns, retirements in 
upcoming years, or replacement schedules, such as planned installation 
of new control equipment to meet other regulations or routine equipment 
replacement or modernization.
5. Smoke Management Techniques for Agricultural and Forestry Burning
    Smoke from agricultural and forestry burning are major contributors 
to visibility impairment in Oregon Class I areas. Organic and elemental 
carbon particulates are the dominant pollutant species contributing to 
haze in Oregon Class I areas on the 20% worst days. Much of these 
particulates are from wildfires, which fluctuates significantly from 
year to year, but there is also a significant contribution from 
controlled agricultural and forestry burning. Of the controlled 
burning, prescribed forestry burning represents the largest source, at 
approximately 58% of the total burning in the state, and agricultural 
burning

[[Page 30466]]

(including open field burning) is approximately 11%.
    In Oregon, prescribed forest burning and agricultural burning is 
regulated under the Oregon Smoke Management Plan. On November 2, 2007, 
the Oregon Department of Forestry (ODF) adopted revisions to this plan 
which included new visibility protection provisions that incorporated 
references to the Oregon Regional Haze Plan and the Enhanced Smoke 
Management Program (ESMP) criteria in the RHR section 309. Oregon's 
current smoke management programs, operated by Oregon Department of 
Agriculture (ODA) and ODF, includes the following ESMP elements: (1) 
Taking actions to minimize smoke emissions, (2) burning only during 
appropriate weather conditions in order to avoid smoke impacts in urban 
areas, (3) encourages using alternatives to fire, and includes a 
comprehensive reference manual of alternatives to prescribed fire, (4) 
a requirement that burning permits must be obtained prior to burning, 
and (5) a burn authorization process that involves the issuance of 
smoke management forecasts and burning instructions. Agricultural 
burning in the Willamette Valley is further controlled under a smoke 
management program operated by ODA. Field burning in Jefferson and 
Union counties is controlled through smoke management programs 
established by county ordinance and operated at that level. These 
county programs have requirements to avoid burning upwind of nearby 
Class I areas when smoke would impair visibility.
6. Enforceability of Emission Limitations and Control Measures
    Oregon has ensured that all emission limitations and control 
measures used to meet reasonable progress goals are enforceable, and 
pursuant to OAR 340-200-0040, are included in the State of Oregon Clean 
Air Act Implementation Plan. ODEQ has adopted the Oregon Regional Haze 
Plan, including the Oregon BART rules, into the SIP submittal, which 
ensures that all elements in the plan are enforceable.
    In addition to six factors discussed above, Oregon indicated a 
number of additional measures it intends to take in the future as part 
of its long term strategy. As described in additional detail in the SIP 
submittal section 12.6, the State intends to: (1) Further evaluate 
controls for Non-BART Sources, (2) evaluate prescribed burning 
contribution to haze and possible controls, (3) evaluate the 
contribution from general outdoor open burning, and (4) evaluate the 
contribution from rangeland burning. EPA acknowledges these additional 
measures and analysis that Oregon is planning to conduct, but is not 
necessary to take these specific activities into account at this time 
in evaluating whether the enforceable measures contained in the State's 
LTS satisfy the RHR requirement.
    EPA is proposing to find that Oregon adequately addressed the RHR 
requirements in developing its LTS. The LTS provides sufficient 
documentation to ensure that Oregon will meet its emission reduction 
obligations for all Class I areas it affects in the first planning 
period. Oregon relied on monitoring, emission inventories and modeling 
information from the WRAP as the technical basis for its LTS. 
Coordination and consultation occurred with other states through the 
WRAP, in which all western states participated in developing the 
technical analysis upon which their SIPs are based. Oregon's analysis 
included all anthropogenic sources of visibility impairment including 
major and minor stationary sources, mobile sources, and area sources. 
The anticipated net effect on visibility over the first planning period 
due to changes in point, area, and mobile source emissions is an 
improvement in visibility in all Class I areas in Oregon on the worst 
20% days, and no degradation of visibility on the 20% best days.

H. Monitoring Strategy and Other Implementation Plan Requirements

    The primary monitoring network for regional haze in Oregon is the 
IMPROVE network. There are currently IMPROVE sites in the Mt. Hood 
Wilderness area, Three Sister Wilderness area, Crater Lake National 
Park, Kalmiopsis Wilderness area, Strawberry Mountain Wilderness area, 
and Hells Canyon Wilderness area. IMPROVE monitoring data from 2000-
2004 serves as the baseline for the regional haze program, and is 
relied upon in the Oregon Regional Haze submittal. Oregon commits to 
rely on the IMPROVE network for complying with the regional haze 
monitoring requirement in EPA's RHR for the current and future regional 
haze implementation periods. See section 4.4 of the SIP submittal. Data 
produced by the IMPROVE monitoring network will be used for preparing 
the five-year progress reports and the 10-year SIP revisions, each of 
which relies on analysis of the preceding five years of data.

I. Consultation With States and Federal Land Managers

    Through the WRAP, member states and Tribes worked extensively with 
the FLMs from the U.S. Departments of the Interior and Agriculture to 
develop technical analyses that support the regional haze SIPs for the 
WRAP states. The proposed Regional Haze plan for Oregon was provided to 
the FLM for comment on November 11, 2008, the start of a 60-day comment 
period. See section 13.1 of the SIP submittal. Oregon also consulted 
with the States of Washington, Idaho, Nevada, and California.
    Oregon commits to continued consultation with the FLMs and the 
other states as part of the continued implementation of the plan and 
for future progress reports and revisions. This continuing consultation 
process will provide the opportunity for on-going opportunities to 
address a host of items including, for example, the implementation of 
emission control programs, changes to the monitoring strategy or 
monitoring locations, status of state actions to meet commitments for 
future assessments or rulemaking, and work on the five-year reviews and 
ten-year revisions. Additionally, Oregon consulted with the tribes 
during development of their plan through the WRAP activities and direct 
outreach to the tribes.

J. Periodic SIP Revisions and Five-Year Progress Reports

    Section 51.308(f) of the RHR requires that the regional haze plans 
be revised and submitted to EPA by July 31, 2018 and every 10 years 
thereafter. 40 CFR 51.308(g) requires the state to submit a progress 
report to EPA every five years evaluating progress towards the 
reasonable progress goals for each Class I area in the State and each 
Class I area located outside the State which may be affected by 
emissions from within the State. Oregon has committed to evaluate and 
reassess its Regional Haze plan and to provide a Regional Haze SIP 
revision by July 31, 2018 for the next 10 year planning cycle. See 
section 13.5 of the SIP submittal. Oregon has also committed to 
submitting the five-year review and report on the Regional Haze plan. 
See section 13.1 of the SIP submittal.

IV. What action is EPA proposing?

    On June 21, 2011, EPA approved portions of the Oregon Regional Haze 
Plan submitted December 10, 2010, as supplemented on February 1, 2011, 
including the Oregon's emission inventory, determination of baseline 
and natural conditions and the BART controls and emission limits. 
Today, for the reasons explained above, EPA is proposing to approve the 
remaining parts of the Oregon Regional Haze submittal as meeting the 
requirements

[[Page 30467]]

set forth in section 169A and 169B of the Act and in 40 CFR 51.300-308 
regarding regional haze.

V. Oregon Notice Provision

    Oregon Revised Statute 468.126, prohibits ODEQ from imposing a 
penalty for violation of an air, water, or solid waste permit unless 
the source has been provided five days' advanced written notice of the 
violation and has not come into compliance or submitted a compliance 
schedule within that five-day period. By its terms, the statute does 
not apply to Oregon's Title V program or to any program if application 
of the notice provision would disqualify the program from Federal 
delegation. Oregon has previously confirmed that, because application 
of the notice provision would preclude EPA approval of the Oregon SIP, 
no advance notice is required for violation of SIP requirements.

VI. Scope of Action

    Oregon has not demonstrated authority to implement and enforce the 
Oregon Administrative rules within ``Indian Country'' as defined in 18 
U.S.C. 1151. ``Indian country'' is defined under 18 U.S.C. 1151 as: (1) 
All land within the limits of any Indian reservation under the 
jurisdiction of the United States Government, notwithstanding the 
issuance of any patent, and including rights-of-way running through the 
reservation, (2) all dependent Indian communities within the borders of 
the United States, whether within the original or subsequently acquired 
territory thereof, and whether within or without the limits of a State, 
and (3) all Indian allotments, the Indian titles to which have not been 
extinguished, including rights-of-way running through the same. Under 
this definition, EPA treats as reservations trust lands validly set 
aside for the use of a Tribe even if the trust lands have not been 
formally designated as a reservation. Therefore, this SIP approval does 
not extend to ``Indian Country'' in Oregon. See CAA sections 
110(a)(2)(A) (SIP shall include enforceable emission limits), 
110(a)(2)(E)(i) (State must have adequate authority under State law to 
carry out SIP), and 172(c)(6) (nonattainment SIPs shall include 
enforceable emission limits).

VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a 
SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and 
applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). 
Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state 
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. 
Accordingly, this proposed action merely approves state law as meeting 
Federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond 
those imposed by state law. For that reason, this proposed action:
     Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to 
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order 
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the 
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact 
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory 
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or 
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded 
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     Does not have Federalism implications as specified in 
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Is not an economically significant regulatory action based 
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to 
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the 
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent 
with the Clean Air Act; and
     Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to 
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental 
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under 
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). In addition, 
this rule does not have tribal implications as specified by Executive 
Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), because the rule neither 
imposes substantial direct compliance costs on tribal governments, nor 
preempts tribal law. Therefore, the requirements of sections 5(b) and 
5(c) of the Executive Order do not apply to this rule. Consistent with 
EPA policy, EPA nonetheless provided a consultation opportunity to 
Tribes in Idaho, Oregon and Washington in letters dated January 14, 
2011. EPA received one request for consultation, and we have followed-
up with that Tribe.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Air pollution control, Environmental protection, Intergovernmental 
relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Particulate matter, Reporting and 
recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides, Visibility, and Volatile 
organic compounds.

    Dated: May 14, 2012.
Michelle L. Pirzadeh,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 10.
[FR Doc. 2012-12490 Filed 5-22-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P