Document ID: EPA-R10-OAR-2017-0482-0001
Agency: epa
Document Type: Proposed Rule
Title: Air Quality State Implementation Plans; Approvals and Promulgations: Oregon; Regional Haze Progress Report
Posted Date: 2018-03-19T04:00Z

[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 53 (Monday, March 19, 2018)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 11927-11933]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2018-04931]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R10-OAR-2017-0482; FRL-9975-22-Region 10]

Air Plan Approval; Oregon; Regional Haze Progress Report

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to 
approve a revision to the Oregon Regional Haze State Implementation 
Plan (SIP), submitted by the State of Oregon on July 18, 2017. Oregon 
submitted its Regional Haze Progress Report (``progress report'' or 
``report'') and a negative declaration stating that further revision of 
the existing regional haze SIP is not needed at this time. Oregon 
submitted both the progress report and the negative declaration in the 
form of implementation plan revisions as required by federal 
regulations. The progress report addresses the federal Regional Haze 
Rule (RHR) requirements under the Clean Air Act (CAA) to submit a 
report describing progress in achieving reasonable progress goals 
(RPGs) established for regional haze and a determination of the 
adequacy of the

[[Page 11928]]

state's existing plan addressing regional haze.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before April 18, 2018.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R10-
OAR-2017-0482 at http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online 
instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot 
be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. The EPA may publish any 
comment received to its public docket. Do not submit electronically any 
information you consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) 
or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 
Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a 
written comment. The written comment is considered the official comment 
and should include discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA 
will generally not consider comments or comment contents located 
outside of the primary submission (i.e. on the web, cloud, or other 
file sharing system). For additional submission methods, the full EPA 
public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions, 
and general guidance on making effective comments, please visit http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jeff Hunt, Air Planning Unit, Office 
of Air and Waste (OAW-150), Environmental Protection Agency--Region 10, 
1200 Sixth Ave, Seattle, WA 98101; telephone number: (206) 553-0256, 
email address: [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document whenever ``we,'' 
``us,'' or ``our'' is used, it is intended to refer to the EPA.

I. Background

    Oregon submitted its initial regional haze SIP to the EPA on 
December 20, 2010, and submitted supplemental information on February 
1, 2011. The EPA approved portions of the Oregon regional haze SIP as 
meeting certain requirements of the regional haze program, including 
the requirements for best available retrofit technology, on July 5, 
2011, and the remaining portions of the regional haze SIP on August 22, 
2012.\1\ Five years after submittal of the initial regional haze plan, 
states are required to submit progress reports that evaluate progress 
towards the RPGs for each mandatory Class I Federal area \2\ (Class I 
area) within the state and in each Class I area outside the state which 
may be affected by emissions from within the state. 40 CFR 51.308(g). 
States are also required to submit, at the same time as the progress 
report, a determination of the adequacy of the state's existing 
regional haze plan. 40 CFR 51.308(h). On July 18, 2017, the Oregon 
Department of Environmental Quality (ODEQ) submitted as a SIP revision 
a report on the progress made in the first implementation period 
towards the RPGs for Class I areas. The EPA is proposing to approve 
Oregon's progress report on the basis that it satisfies the 
requirements of 40 CFR 51.308. We also propose to find that Oregon's 
progress report demonstrates that the state's long-term strategy and 
emission control measures in the existing regional haze SIP are 
sufficient to enable Oregon to meet all established RPGs for 2018.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See 76 FR 38997 and 77 FR 50611.
    \2\ Areas designated as mandatory Class I Federal areas consist 
of national parks exceeding 6000 acres, wilderness areas and 
national memorial parks exceeding 5000 acres, and all international 
parks that were in existence on August 7, 1977 (42 U.S.C. 7472(a)). 
Listed at 40 CFR part 81, subpart D.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Context for Understanding Oregon's Progress Report

    To facilitate a better understanding of Oregon's progress report as 
well as the EPA's evaluation of it, this section provides background on 
the regional haze program in Oregon.

A. Framework for Measuring Progress

    The EPA has established a metric for determining visibility 
conditions at Class I areas referred to as the ``deciview index,'' 
which is measured in deciviews, as defined in 40 CFR 51.301. The 
deciview index is calculated using monitoring data collected from the 
Interagency Monitoring of Protected Visual Environments (IMPROVE) 
network monitors. Oregon has twelve Class I areas within its borders: 
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, 
Eagle Cap Wilderness, and Hells Canyon Wilderness. Monitoring data 
representing visibility conditions in Oregon's 12 Class I areas was 
based on the six IMPROVE monitors identified in Table 1. As shown in 
the table, the CRLA1 monitoring site represents four Class I areas, the 
THSI1 site represents three areas, and the SRAR1 site represents two 
areas.

 Table 1--Oregon IMPROVE Monitoring Sites and Represented Class I Areas
------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Site code                           Class I area
------------------------------------------------------------------------
MOHO1..................................  Mt. Hood Wilderness.
THSI1..................................  Mt. Jefferson Wilderness.
                                         Mt. Washington Wilderness.
                                         Three Sisters Wilderness.
CRLA1..................................  Crater Lake National Park.
                                         Diamond Peak Wilderness.
                                         Mountain Lakes Wilderness.
                                         Gearhart Mountain Wilderness.
KALM1..................................  Kalmiopsis Wilderness.
STAR1..................................  Strawberry Mountain Wilderness.
                                         Eagle Cap Wilderness.
HECA1..................................  Hells Canyon Wilderness Area.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In developing its initial regional haze SIP as part of the Western 
Regional Air Partnership (WRAP), Oregon determined, and the EPA in its 
approval agreed, that no major contributions were identified that 
necessitated developing new interstate strategies, mitigation measures, 
or emission reduction obligations with respect to visibility in other 
western states.\3\ Therefore, Oregon's progress report does not address 
visibility impacts from sources in other states or the visibility 
impact of Oregon sources on Class I areas in other states.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ 76 FR 12651, 12663-64; 76 FR 38997.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under the RHR, a state's initial regional haze SIP must establish 
two RPGs for each of its Class I areas: one for the 20 percent least 
impaired days and one for the 20 percent most impaired days. The RPGs 
must provide for an improvement in visibility on the 20 percent most 
impaired days and ensure no degradation in visibility on the 20 percent 
least impaired days, as compared to visibility conditions during the 
baseline period. In establishing the RPGs, a state must consider the 
uniform rate of visibility improvement from the baseline to natural 
conditions in 2064 and the emission reductions measures needed to 
achieve it. Oregon set the RPGs for its twelve Class I areas based on 
regional atmospheric air quality modeling conducted by the WRAP using 
projected emission reductions in western states from federal and state 
control strategies expected to be in place before 2018.

B. Data Sources for Oregon's Progress Report

    Oregon relied on the WRAP technical data and analyses in a report 
titled ``Western Regional Air Partnership Regional Haze Rule Reasonable 
Progress Summary Report'' (WRAP Report), dated June 28, 2013. The WRAP 
report

[[Page 11929]]

was prepared for the 15 western state members to provide the technical 
basis for the first of their individual progress reports. Data are 
presented in this report on a regional, state, and Class I area 
specific basis that characterize the difference between baseline 
conditions (2000-2004) and the first 5-year progress period (2005-
2009). In developing the progress report, Oregon also evaluated 
visibility conditions in its twelve Class I areas based on the most 
recent 5-year data available at the time Oregon developed the progress 
report (2010-2014).

III. The EPA's Evaluation of Oregon's Progress Report

    This section describes the contents of Oregon's progress report and 
the EPA's evaluation of the report, as well as the EPA's evaluation of 
the determination of adequacy required by 40 CFR 51.308(h) and the 
requirement for state and Federal Land Manager coordination in 40 CFR 
51.308(i).

A. Status of Implementation of All Measures Included in the Regional 
Haze SIP

    In its progress report, Oregon provided a description of the two 
key control measures that the state relied on to implement the regional 
haze program: best available retrofit technology (BART), including 
enforceable emission limits on BART-eligible sources, and its smoke 
management program for forestry burning.\4\ Oregon included a 
description of these programs which are summarized below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ The progress report also included a summary of stationary, 
mobile, and area source control measures that provide supplemental 
emissions reductions as part of the long-term strategy discussion in 
Chapter 2.3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. BART-Level Controls
    Oregon's regional haze SIP identified four BART eligible 
facilities: The Portland General Electric (PGE) Boardman electric power 
plant, the PGE Beaver electric power plant, the Georgia-Pacific Wauna 
Mill, and the International Paper Company mill in Springfield. Of these 
four facilities, only PGE Boardman was found to be subject to BART. 
Accordingly, PGE Boardman installed low nitrogen oxide (NOX) 
burners with a modified over-fire air system in 2011 and is meeting 
BART NOX emission limitations. In early 2014, BART sulfur 
dioxide (SO2) controls, consisting of a semi-dry flue gas 
desulfurization system, were installed at PGE Boardman. This facility 
now complies with the initial BART SO2 emission limit. A 
further reduction in the SO2 emission limit is required at 
PGE Boardman by 2018. Finally, the BART requirements for the PGE 
Boardman plant include permanently ceasing burning coal in the main 
boiler by December 31, 2020.
    In addition to the BART-level controls on the PGE Boardman power 
plant, three BART-eligible sources took federally enforceable emission 
limits to avoid being subject to BART. Specifically, the PGE Beaver 
electric power plant has six combined cycle turbines that are the BART-
eligible emission units. PGE requested daily fuel oil limits for these 
turbines, as well as a requirement that all future oil contain no more 
than 0.0015% sulfur. An equation was developed to determine a daily 
fuel oil quantity limit that was tied to the sulfur content of the 
fuel, so as not to exceed the visibility threshold level of 0.5 
deciview.\5\ This plant has a Title V operating permit, which was 
modified on January 21, 2009, to incorporate federally enforceable 
permit limits (FEPLs), which included the above daily fuel oil limits 
and sulfur content in fuel oil burned at the plant.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Under the approved Oregon regional haze SIP, any source with 
an impact of greater than 0.5 deciview in any Class I area, 
including Class I areas in other states, would be subject to 
additional BART analysis and BART emission limitations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Georgia-Pacific proposed a FEPL for its Wauna Mill which provided 
for reduced emissions of visibility impairing pollutants in two steps. 
The non-condensible gas (NCG) incinerator, which was the largest source 
of SO2 emissions at the mill, was eliminated, and 
restrictions on the use of fuel oil were established through FEPLs:
     The use of fuel oil in the power boiler was permanently 
discontinued.
     Use of fuel oil in the lime kiln was discontinued until 
the NCG incinerator was eliminated, after which fuel oil was again 
used.
     The maximum pulp production rate was limited to 1,030 tons 
per day until completion of this project, after which the maximum pulp 
production limit would increase to 1,350 tons per day.
    This plant has a Title V operating permit, number 04-0004, which 
was modified on June 18, 2009, to incorporate the FEPL requirements. 
This permit was again revised on December 2, 2010, to reflect 
elimination of the NCG incinerator.
    The International Paper Company mill in Springfield manufactures 
linerboard, primarily from wood chips and recycled old corrugated 
containers. This plant has seven different BART-eligible emission 
units. In order to minimize the likelihood of exceeding the 0.5 
deciview visibility threshold, FEPLs were established including a 
restriction on fuel oil could be burned at the facility. The plant's 
Title V operating permit was modified on April 7, 2009, to incorporate 
the FEPL requirements. Compliance with the condition to limit 
visibility impacts is demonstrated through the use of a formula, 
emission factors, and continuous emissions monitoring data.
    Oregon's 2010 regional haze SIP identified a fifth facility, the 
Amalgamated Sugar Company's sugar beet processing facility located in 
Nyssa. This facility has potential impacts greater than 0.5 deciview 
for the Eagle Cap Wilderness Area based on CALPUFF modeling of 2003-
2005 emissions. As noted in the progress report, ``The plant is 
currently shutdown, and has not identified a date to resume operations. 
DEQ's BART rules in 340-223-0040(3) specify that this facility must 
either modify its permit by adopting an FEPL or be subject to BART, 
before resuming operation. At this time, this facility is still 
shutdown, and the permit has not been modified.''
2. Smoke Management
    Throughout the first regional haze planning period, Oregon 
implemented its Smoke Management Plan (smoke management plan). The 
primary purpose of the smoke management plan is to keep smoke from 
forestland prescribed burning from being carried into smoke sensitive 
receptor areas, generally population centers, and to provide 
opportunity for essential forestland burning while minimizing 
emissions. Smoke from agricultural and forestry burning are major 
contributors to Class I area visibility impairment and regional haze in 
Oregon and the western United States. The pollutant species 
contribution identified in the Oregon regional haze SIP showed that a 
significant portion of the 20% most impaired days in all of Oregon's 
Class I areas is from organic and elemental carbon, due to fire 
emissions. Much of this contribution is from wildfire, which fluctuates 
significantly from year to year. However, there is also a sizable 
contribution from controlled burning, which is dominated by 
agricultural and forestry burning.
    Under Oregon Revised Statutes (ORS) 477.013, the State Forester and 
ODEQ are required to protect air quality through a smoke management 
plan, which was included in the SIP. Oregon Department of Forestry 
(ODF) smoke management rules are listed in Oregon Administrative Rules 
(OAR) 629-048-0001 to 629-048-0500, 629-043-0043, and 629-043-0041.
    On November 2, 2007, ODF adopted revisions to the smoke management

[[Page 11930]]

plan to incorporate numerous changes to provide protection of air 
quality and visibility in Class I areas. New visibility protection 
provisions were adopted in OAR 629-048-0130 that incorporated 
references to the regional haze SIP, including the Enhanced Smoke 
Management Program (ESMP) criteria in section 309 of the Regional Haze 
Rule. Oregon continues to evaluate the impact of prescribed fire on 
Class I areas and make necessary improvements. As a result, Oregon 
revised the smoke management plan again in 2014 to incorporate 
practices to minimize impacts to the Kalmiopsis Wilderness and Crater 
Lake National Park. The 2014 revisions to the smoke management plan 
were submitted as a revision to the SIP and will be addressed in a 
separate action.

B. Summary of Visibility Conditions

    In addition to the evaluation of control measures, Oregon 
documented in the progress report the differences between the 
visibility conditions during the baseline period (2000-2004), the first 
progress period (2005-2009), and the most current five year averaging 
period (2010-2014) based on data that were available at the time Oregon 
developed the progress report.

                                Table 2--Oregon Class I Area Visibility Conditions on the 20% Most and Least Impaired Day
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                            20% Most impaired days                      20% Least impaired days
                                                                 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                              2005-09                                     2005-09
            Monitor/region                 Oregon class I area     2000-04     First     2010-14               2000-04     First     2010-14
                                                                   Baseline   progress   Current   2018 RPGs   Baseline   progress   Current   2018 RPGs
                                                                               period     period                           period     period
                                                                       (dv)       (dv)       (dv)       (dv)       (dv)       (dv)       (dv)       (dv)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MOHO1 Northern Cascades...............  Mt. Hood Wilderness Area       14.9       13.7       13.2       13.8        2.2        1.7        1.3        2.0
THES1 Central Cascades................  Mt. Jefferson, Mt.             15.3       16.2       14.9       14.3        3.0        3.0        2.5        2.9
                                         Washington, and Three
                                         Sisters Wilderness
                                         Areas.
CRLA1 Southern Cascades...............  Crater Lake National           13.7       13.8       11.7       13.4        1.7        1.6        1.2        1.5
                                         Park; Diamond Peak,
                                         Mountain Lakes, and
                                         Gearhart Mountain
                                         Wilderness Areas.
KALM1 Coast Range.....................  Kalmiopsis Wilderness          15.5       16.4       14.6       15.1        6.3        6.4        6.1        6.1
                                         Area.
STAR1 Eastern Oregon..................  Strawberry Mountain and        18.6       16.2       12.5       17.5        4.5        3.6        2.8        4.1
                                         Eagle Cap Wilderness
                                         Areas.
HECA1 Eastern Oregon/Western Idaho....  Hells Canyon Wilderness        18.6       18.2       16.3       16.6        5.5        4.8        4.1        4.7
                                         Area.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Based on the information in Chapter 3.2 of the progress report, 
Oregon demonstrated that all Class I areas experienced improvements in 
visibility for the 20% most and least impaired days between the 
baseline (2000-2004) and current (2010-2014) visibility periods, as 
shown in Tables 16 and 17 of the progress report, and summarized in 
Table 2 above. Oregon's progress report included an analysis of 
progress and impediments to progress. Oregon noted that there have been 
significant improvements in visibility conditions on both the 20% most 
and least impaired days, meeting the 2018 RPGs for all Oregon Class I 
areas except at the THSI1 monitor, which tracks visibility conditions 
for the Mt. Jefferson, Mt. Washington and Three Sisters wilderness 
areas in the Oregon Central Cascades.
    In the Oregon Central Cascades, progress towards the RPGs has been 
slower than anticipated, and Oregon attributed this slower progress to 
visibility impairment due to smoke from episodic wildfires in the area. 
The visibility conditions on the 20% most impaired days in the Central 
Cascades had improved by 0.4 deciviews between the baseline and current 
progress periods, but had not yet met the 2018 RPG. Tables 17, 18 and 
21 and Figure 20 of the report show that, even though there had been a 
steady reduction in ammonium sulfate formation since 2000, indicative 
of a reduction in anthropogenic contributions to visibility impairment 
at this site, particulate organic aerosols has consistently remained 
the dominant contributor to light extinction, with notable spikes in 
the summers of 2011 and 2012. Oregon attributed this increase in 
organic aerosols to wildfire smoke. The 2011 and 2012 fires potentially 
impacting the THSI1 monitor included the Mother Lode (2,661 acres), 
Shadow Lake (10,000 acres), High Cascades (108,154 acres), and Pole 
Creek (26,000 acres) fires, as illustrated in Figure 21 of the report.
    Oregon's progress report concluded that the state is making 
adequate progress in improving visibility as a result of actions 
identified in the regional haze SIP. The average trends for least 
impaired days show improvement at every monitoring location, with all 
areas currently meeting the 2018 RPGs for the 20% least impaired days. 
Similarly, average trends for most impaired days show improvement at 
every monitoring location, with all areas except the Central Cascades, 
as described above, meeting the 2018 RPGs. The progress report also 
contained a review of Oregon's visibility monitoring strategy, 
concluding that the IMPROVE network continues to comply with the 
monitoring requirements in the Regional Haze Rule and that no 
modifications to Oregon's visibility monitoring strategy are necessary 
at this time.

C. Summary of Emissions Reductions

    The Oregon progress report also includes a summary of the emissions 
reductions achieved throughout the state through implementation of the 
control measures relied upon to achieve reasonable progress. 
Specifically, Oregon identified in the progress report emissions 
reductions achieved through controls on Oregon BART-eligible sources. 
The Oregon progress report included the emissions reductions achieved 
at the PGE Boardman Plant, the PGE Beaver Plant, the Georgia Pacific 
Wauna Mill, and International Paper Mill. According to the Oregon 
progress report, implementation of control measures caused significant 
reductions in SO2 emissions at all four facilities, as well 
as reductions in NOX and coarse particulate matter 
(PM10) emissions at all facilities except the Georgia 
Pacific Wauna Mill. The progress report also detailed emissions 
reductions achieved as part of the smoke management program. In 
particular, the progress report highlights alternatives to burning such 
as biomass

[[Page 11931]]

removal, chipping, and other techniques to reduce fire hazard, 
offsetting up to 13,500 tons of fine particulate emissions estimated in 
2015 compared to burning.
    In addition, the progress report summarized changes in emission 
inventories for all major visibility impairing pollutants from point, 
area, on-road mobile, off-road mobile, oil and gas, fugitive and road 
dust, and anthropogenic fire source categories in the state. For these 
summaries, emissions during the baseline years are represented using a 
2002 inventory, which was developed with support from the WRAP for use 
in the original regional haze SIP development. Differences between 
inventories are represented as the difference between the 2002 
inventory, and a 2008 inventory which leverages recent inventory 
development work performed by the WRAP for the West-wide Jump Start Air 
Quality Modeling Study (WestJumpAQMS) and Deterministic & Empirical 
Assessment of Smoke's Contribution to Ozone Project 
(DEASCO3) modeling projects.
    Oregon's progress report noted that the emissions inventories were 
complicated by the changes and enhancements that have occurred between 
development of the baseline and current period emissions inventories. 
Oregon stated that many of the differences between inventories are more 
reflective of changes in inventory methodology, rather that changes in 
actual emissions. An example is the reclassification of some off-road 
mobile sources (such as some types of marine vessels and locomotives) 
into the area source category in 2008, which may have contributed to 
increases in area source inventory totals, but decreases in off-road 
mobile totals.
    Notwithstanding these differences between the 2002 and 2008 
emissions inventory methodologies, estimated emissions reductions for 
SO2 and NOX are summarized in Tables 3 and 4. We 
note that the other visibility impairing pollutants (primary organic 
aerosols, elemental carbon, fine soil, and coarse matter) also 
generally declined as detailed in Chapter 3.4 of the progress 
report.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Fine soil and coarse mass decreased for the windblown dust 
inventory comparisons and increased for the combined fugitive/road 
dust inventories. Oregon noted that large variability in changes in 
windblown dust was observed for the contiguous WRAP states, which 
was likely due in large part to enhancements in dust inventory 
methodology, rather than changes in actual emissions. For most 
parameters, especially primary organic aerosols, volatile organic 
compounds, and elemental carbon, natural fire emission inventory 
estimates decreased, and anthropogenic fire estimates increased. 
Oregon noted that these differences are not necessarily reflective 
of changes in monitored data, as the baseline period is represented 
by an average of 2000-2004 fire emissions, and the progress period 
is represented only by the fires that occurred in 2008, as 
referenced in section 3.3.1 of the progress report.

                                  Table 3--Sulfur Dioxide Emissions by Category
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                     Sulfur dioxide emissions (tons/year)
                                                             ---------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                  Difference
                                                                   2002            2008        (percent change)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                              Anthropogenic Sources
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point.......................................................          18,493          15,918              -2,575
Area........................................................           9,932           1,528              -8,404
On-Road Mobile..............................................           3,446             654              -2,792
Off-Road Mobile.............................................           6,535             431              -6,104
Area Oil and Gas............................................               0               0                   0
Fugitive and Road Dust......................................               0               0                   0
Anthropogenic Fire..........................................           1,586           1,403                -182
                                                             ---------------------------------------------------
    Total Anthropogenic.....................................          39,992          19,934      -20,058 (-50%)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                 Natural Sources
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Natural Fire................................................           7,328           1,207              -6,121
Biogenic....................................................               0               0                   0
Wind Blown Dust.............................................               0               0                   0
                                                             ---------------------------------------------------
    Total Natural...........................................           7,328           1,207       -6,121 (-84%)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                   All Sources
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total Emissions.........................................          47,320          21,140      -26,180 (-55%)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                Table 4--Oxides of Nitrogen Emissions by Category
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                   Oxides of nitrogen emissions (tons/year)
                                                             ---------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                  Difference
                                                                   2002            2008        (percent change)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                              Anthropogenic Sources
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point.......................................................          26,160          23,548              -2,612
Area........................................................          14,740          24,121               9,381
On-Road Mobile..............................................         111,646          98,399             -13,247
Off-Road Mobile.............................................          53,896          23,463             -30,434
Area Oil and Gas............................................              85               0                 -85

[[Page 11932]]

 
Fugitive and Road Dust......................................               0               0                   0
Anthropogenic Fire..........................................           6,292           9,923               3,630
                                                             ---------------------------------------------------
    Total Anthropogenic.....................................         212,819         179,453      -33,366 (-16%)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                 Natural Sources
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Natural Fire................................................          27,397           8,521             -18,876
Biogenic....................................................          16,527           5,560             -10,967
Wind Blown Dust.............................................               0               0                   0
                                                             ---------------------------------------------------
    Total Natural...........................................          43,924          14,081      -29,843 (-68%)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                   All Sources
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total Emissions.........................................         256,744         193,534      -63,209 (-25%)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In its progress report, Oregon concluded that the state is making 
adequate progress in improving visibility as a result of actions 
identified in the regional haze SIP, as well as actions taken by 
adjoining states, the federal government, and compliance with 
international treaty, as described in more detail in the ``Long Term 
Strategy Update'' chapter of the progress report.

D. Determination of Adequacy (40 CFR 51.308(h))

    In accordance with 40 CFR 51.308(h)(1), if the state determines, at 
the time the five-year progress report is submitted, that the existing 
implementation plan requires no further substantive revision at this 
time in order to achieve established goals for visibility improvement 
and emissions reductions, the state must provide to the Administrator a 
negative declaration that further revision of the existing 
implementation plan is not needed at this time. Within the progress 
report, the State of Oregon provided a negative declaration stating 
that further revision of the existing implementation plan is not 
needed. The basis for the state's negative declaration is the finding 
that visibility on the 20% most and least impaired days has improved, 
and 2018 RPGs attained at all Oregon IMPROVE monitors, except for the 
20% most impaired days at the Central Cascades monitor, which Oregon 
demonstrated was due to smoke from wildfires in 2011 and 2012. 
Accordingly, the EPA proposes to find that Oregon adequately addressed 
the requirements in 40 CFR 51.308(h) in its determination that the 
existing Oregon regional haze SIP requires no substantive revisions at 
this time to achieve the established RPGs for Class I areas.

E. Consultation With Federal Land Managers (40 CFR 51.308(i))

    In accordance with 40 CFR 51.308(i), the state must provide the 
FLMs with an opportunity for consultation, in person and at least 60 
days prior to holding any public hearings on an implementation plan (or 
plan revision). The state must also include a description of how it 
addressed any comments provided by the FLMs. The State of Oregon 
invited the FLMs to comment on its draft progress report on February 3, 
2016, for a 60-day comment period ending April 4, 2016, prior to 
releasing the report for public comment. The FLM comments and Oregon's 
responses are presented in Appendix D of the progress report.
    The EPA proposes to find that Oregon has addressed the requirements 
in 40 CFR 51.308(i). Oregon provided a 60-day period for the FLMs to 
comment on the progress report, which was at least 60 days before 
seeking public comments, and provided a summary of these comments and 
responses to these comments in the progress report.

IV. The EPA's Proposed Action

    The EPA is proposing to approve the Oregon Regional Haze Progress 
Report submitted to the EPA on July 18, 2017, as meeting the applicable 
requirements of the CAA and RHR, as set forth in 40 CFR 51.308(g). The 
EPA proposes to find that the existing regional haze SIP is adequate to 
meet the state's visibility goals and requires no substantive revision 
at this time, as set forth in 40 CFR 51.308(h). We propose to find that 
Oregon fulfilled the requirements in 40 CFR 51.308(i) regarding state 
coordination with FLMs.

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP 
submission that complies with the provisions of the CAA and applicable 
Federal regulations.\7\ Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, the EPA's 
role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria 
of the CAA. 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:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to 
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 
2011);
     is not an Executive Order 13771 (82 FR 9339, February 2, 
2017) regulatory action because actions such as SIP approvals are 
exempted under Executive Order 12866;
     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

[[Page 11933]]

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 this rulemaking does not involve technical standards; and
     does not provide the 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 proposed action does not apply on any Indian 
reservation land or in any other area where the EPA or an Indian tribe 
has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of 
Indian country, the rule does not have tribal implications as specified 
by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

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

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

    Dated: February 26, 2018.
Chris Hladick,
Regional Administrator, Region 10.
[FR Doc. 2018-04931 Filed 3-16-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P