[Federal Register: July 5, 2011 (Volume 76, Number 128)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 38997-39005]
[DOCID:fr05jy11-6]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R10-OAR-2011-0035; FRL-9425-3]

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

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is approving portions of a State Implementation Plan (SIP)
revision submitted by the State of Oregon on December 20, 2010, as
meeting the requirements of Clean Air Act (CAA) section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) as it applies to visibility for the 1997 8-hour
ozone and 1997 particulate matter (PM2.5) National Ambient
Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). EPA is also approving portions of the
revision as meeting certain requirements of the regional haze program,
including the requirements for best available retrofit technology
(BART).

DATES:  Effective Date: This final rule is effective August 4, 2011.

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID
No. EPA-R10-OAR-2010-0035. All documents in the docket are listed on
the http://www.regulations.gov Web site. Although listed in the index,
some information is not publicly available, e.g., Confidential Business
Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted
by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is
not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available only in hard
copy form. Publicly available docket materials are available either
electronically through http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at
the State and Tribal Air Programs Unit, 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 in the FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to view the hard copy of the
docket. You may view the hard copy of the docket Monday through Friday,
8 a.m. to 4 p.m., excluding Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Keith Rose, EPA Region 10, Suite 900,
Office of Air, Waste and Toxics, 1200 Sixth Avenue, Seattle, WA 98101.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Definitions

    For the purpose of this document, we are giving meaning to certain
words or initials as follows:
    (i) The words or initials Act, CAA, or Clean Air Act mean or refer
to the Clean Air Act, unless the context indicates otherwise.
    (ii) The words EPA, we, us or our mean or refer to the United
States Environmental Protection Agency.
    (iii) The initials SIP mean or refer to State Implementation Plan.
    (iv) The words Oregon and State mean the State of Oregon.

Table of Contents

I. Background Information
II. Response to Comments
III. Final Action
IV. Oregon Notice Provision
V. Scope of EPA Approval
VI. Statutory and Executive Orders Review

I. Background Information

    On July 18, 1997, EPA promulgated new NAAQS for 8-hour ozone and
for fine particulate matter (PM2.5). This action is being
taken, in part, in response to the promulgation of the 1997 8-hour
ozone and PM2.5 NAAQS. Section 110(a)(1) of the CAA requires
states to submit a SIP revision to address a new or revised NAAQS
within 3 years after promulgation of such standards, or within such
shorter period as EPA may prescribe. Section 110(a)(2) lists the
elements that such new SIPs must address, as applicable, including
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i), which pertains to interstate transport of
certain emissions.
    Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) of the CAA requires that a SIP must contain
adequate provisions prohibiting any source or other type of emissions
activity within the state from emitting

any air pollutant in amounts which will: (1) Contribute significantly
to nonattainment of the NAAQS in any other state; (2) interfere with
maintenance of the NAAQS by any other state; (3) interfere with any
other state's required measures to prevent significant deterioration of
air quality; or (4) interfere with any other state's required measures
to protect visibility. This action addresses the fourth prong, section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II).
    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 169(A). Congress amended the visibility
provisions in the CAA in 1990 to focus attention on the problem of
regional haze. See CAA section 169(B). 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 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).
In accordance with section 169A of the Clean Air Act, EPA, in
consultation with the Department of the 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 Clean Air Act 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 December 20, 2010, the State of Oregon submitted to EPA a State
Implementation Plan (SIP) revision addressing the interstate transport
requirements for visibility for the 1997 ozone and PM2.5
NAAQS, see CAA Sec.  110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II), and the requirements of the
Regional Haze program at 40 CFR 51.308. (Regional Haze SIP submittal).
    On March 8, 2011, EPA published a notice in which the Agency
proposed to approve the Oregon SIP revision as meeting the requirements
of both section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) of the CAA and the Regional Haze
requirements set forth in sections 169A and 169B of the Act and in 40
CFR 51.300-308 with the exception of Chapter 11, Oregon Reasonable
Progress Goal Demonstration and Chapter 12, Long-Term Strategy. 76 FR
12651. (Notice of Proposed Rulemaking or NPR). For Oregon's Reasonable
Progress Goal Determination and Long-Term Strategy, EPA did not propose
taking any action.

II. Response to Comments

    EPA received a number of comments on the proposed action to approve
certain elements of the Regional Haze SIP submittal. Comments in
support were received from: The Citizens' Utility Board of Oregon;
International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local 125; Morrow
County; and Portland General Electric Company (PGE). Adverse comments
were received by two entities: The National Parks and Conservation
Association (NPCA); and Pacific Environmental Advocacy Center (PEAC).
The comments submitted by NPCA incorporated multiple comments which
were previously submitted to Oregon Department of Environmental Quality
(ODEQ) on some of the prior proposals the State was previously
considering. Some of these comments related to options, closure
timeframes or evaluations which were previously considered by ODEQ but
were not included in the final Regional Haze SIP submission.
Accordingly, because these now superseded aspects of ODEQ's BART
analysis or determination are not before EPA, a response to the
comments about those options is not necessary. The following discussion
summarizes and responds to the relevant comments received on EPA's
proposed SIP action and explains the basis for EPA's final action.
    Comment: The Citizens' Utility Board commented that the ODEQ BART
rules for the PGE coal-fired electric power plant at Boardman, Oregon
(PGE Boardman or Boardman facility) allow for cost effective pollution
controls which will reduce air pollution generated by the facility,
including air pollutants which contribute to haze in Class 1 areas. The
commenter states that the rules also require the Boardman facility to
be shut down by December 31, 2020 and the shut down allows the State of
Oregon to move forward with its goals to reduce carbon emissions
statewide and will protect utility customers from the costs and risks
that will be associated with carbon regulation. The commenter further
stated that the Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART) rules
approved by the ODEQ are the product of several years of work resulting
from a collaborative process involving state agencies, environmental
organizations, consumer groups, local governments, and other
stakeholders. The rules result in significant reductions in air
pollution, while allowing Oregon to pursue important state policies
targeted towards reducing carbon emissions, and keeping electric rates
affordable.
    Response: EPA acknowledges the comment and notes that there will be
a significant reduction in NOX and SO2 from the
Boardman facility due to the BART controls for those pollutants, and
the further reasonable progress limits for SO2 in 2018.
Also, ceasing to use coal at the Foster-Wheeler boiler by end of 2020,
will result in a additional reduction of NOX,
SO2, and carbon dioxide emissions from the facility and
significant cumulative visibility improvement in all impacted Class I
areas.
    Comment: International Brothers of Electrical Workers Local 125
commented that the Boardman facility is more than an electrical
generating plant and that the city of Boardman and county of Morrow are
dependent on this a facility for a substantial portion of its revenue.
Boardman's citizens and Morrow County's resident recognize that the
facility will cease using coal by the end of 2020, but are hopeful that
alternative fuel sources will be approved to continue operations beyond
2020.
    Response: EPA recognizes the facility's importance to the
community. The approved rules do not prevent the facility owners from
using alternate fuel or from constructing a new power source. If the
Boardman facility is powered with alternative fuels or if a new
facility is constructed all applicable CAA requirements, including New
Source Performance Requirements (NSPS) and Prevention of Significant
Deterioration (PSD) emission control requirements, must be met. The
emission netting basis and plant site emission limits (PSELs) used in
determining whether a modification to facility must meet PSD
requirements, will be reduced to zero when the Foster-Wheeler boiler at
the facility permanently ceases to burn coal. OAR<PHONE_NUMBER>(1)(e).
    Comment: Morrow County commented that they support EPA's approval
of Oregon's Regional Haze SIP submittal and stated that the 10 year
timeframe in the BART rule provides adequate time to put reliable
replacement generation in place, protects this region and the state
from the economic blow that would result from an earlier closure and is
an appropriate balance of environmental and economic interests of
Oregon and its citizens. The County further stated that the SIP
accomplishes their wish to

have environmental standards in place that will preserve the beauty of
the area for future generations by reducing emission of NOX,
SO2, and mercury, during the plant's remaining lifetime and
ending all coal-related emissions from the Boardman facility at least
20 years ahead of schedule.
    Response: EPA acknowledges this comment.
    Comment: PGE commented that it believes that the ODEQ BART rules
for the Boardman facility achieve the proper balance of environmental
benefits, the cost to customers and the reliability of the PGE
electrical power system. PGE states it found that it is possible to
secure greater environmental benefits with a better balance of cost and
risk by transitioning the Boardman facility away from coal at least 20
years ahead of schedule. PGE believes that the ODEQ Boardman BART rule
includes significant and cost-effective emission control measures to
improve visibility and ensure that the Boardman plant will cease coal-
firing by December 31, 2020.
    Response: EPA believes that the BART controls required for PGE
Boardman will result in a significant reduction in haze that impacts
Class I areas through 2020. Then, ceasing to burn coal at the facility
will result in additional and significant reductions in SO2
and NOX emissions from Boardman at that time, and well as
substantial reductions in carbon dioxide emissions. Further, ceasing to
burn coal by no later than December 31, 2020, will result in cumulative
visibility improvements in all 14 impacted Class I areas. See Regional
Haze SIP submittal, Appendix D at D-171.
    Comment: Comments were submitted claiming an inappropriate double-
counting of ``remaining useful life'' by ODEQ to justify lesser
pollution control requirements as BART for the Boardman facility.
    Response: ODEQ did not double-count the remaining useful life of
the plant in the PGE Boardman BART analysis. As ODEQ explained, closure
of the plant is not, by itself, considered BART. Rather, the closure
date establishes the remaining useful life of the plant which is used
to determine the cost effectiveness of the various control
technologies. See Regional Haze SIP submittal, Appendix D at D-125. See
also Appendix Y to Part 51--Guidelines for BART Determinations Under
the Regional Haze Rule (BART Guidelines), Section D. step 4.k.1. (70 FR
39156 (July 6, 2005)). A decision to cease burning coal by 2020
shortens the expected useful life of the coal-burning Foster-Wheeler
boiler by 20 years when compared to its expected useful life of 2040.
ODEQ documented its method for incorporating remaining useful plant
life in determining cost effectiveness of control technologies. See
Regional Haze SIP submittal, Appendix D at D-125 and D-131. The BART
Guidelines specifically provide that the remaining useful life of a
source may affect the annualized costs of retrofit controls and
explains that ``where the remaining useful life is less than the time
period for amortizing costs, you should use this shorter time period in
your cost calculations.'' 70 FR 39169. Thus, ODEQ appropriately applied
the BART Guidelines when it considered the remaining useful life of the
Foster-Wheeler boiler when evaluating the cost effectiveness of the
control technologies. In addition, EPA notes that ODEQ's conclusion
regarding cost effectiveness for SO2 controls, specifically
Semi-dry Flue Gas Desulfurization (SDFGD) versus Dry Sorbent Injection
(DSI) technologies, varied appropriately depending on the plant closure
date. See EPA Assessment of ODEQ Determination of Best Available
Retrofit Technology for the PGE Coal Fired Power Plant in Boardman,
Oregon (EPA Boardman BART Assessment) January 18, 2011.
    Comment: One comment stated that a compilation of BART analyses
across the United States reveals that the average cost per deciview
(dv) proposed by either a state or a BART source is $14 to $18 million,
with a maximum of $51 million per dv proposed by South Dakota at the
Big Stone power plant. The commenter noted that ODEQ has chosen $10
million/dv as a cost criterion, which is somewhat below the national
average.
    Response: ODEQ selected a dollars/dv cost effectiveness threshold
of $10 million/dv based on what it considered the most relevant cost
effectiveness figures available from similar coal-fired power plants in
other parts of the country. See Regional Haze SIP submittal, Appendix
D--Table 16 (D-137) for the estimated dollars/dv of the various control
technologies. EPA notes that the comment is consistent with EPA's
review of dollars/dv cost effectiveness data compiled by the National
Park Service (NPS) available for a variety of coal-fired facilities
located across the country. The NPS data show that ODEQ's dollar/dv
threshold is below the average cost for BART NOX and
SO2 control technologies selected for other coal-fired power
plants in the country. In EPA's view, however, the dollars/dv metric is
a difficult one to apply consistently across BART sources given the
variability in the number of Class I areas impacted by emissions from a
BART source and the number of days of impacts at each area. In
assessing the reasonableness of a state's BART determination, EPA does
not consider it appropriate to focus on a bright-line threshold such as
a dollars/dv cost effectiveness threshold but rather on the full range
of relevant factors. In reviewing the BART determination for the
Boardman facility, EPA has accordingly taken into account not only
ODEQ's analysis of dollars/dv, but also the range of visibility impacts
associated with the various control options.
    Comment: One comment expressed concern with the way in which the
incremental cost analysis is used by ODEQ. It stated that to use
incremental costs properly, they must be compared to incremental costs
for similar situations.
    Response: The Regional Haze SIP submittal shows that that ODEQ
estimated the incremental cost and average cost effectiveness of the
various control options considered in its cost analysis for determining
BART. ODEQ first calculated the average cost effectiveness of each
technology, and then calculated the incremental cost of going from the
most cost effective technology to each of the more stringent
technically feasible control technologies. See Regional Haze SIP
submittal, Appendix D--Table 8 at D-132 and Cost effectiveness table on
D-168. The approach used by ODEQ to determine average and incremental
cost effectiveness is consistent with the procedure outlined in the
BART Guidelines. See 70 FR 39167. Given the source-specific nature of a
BART determination and the emphasis not only on the costs of control,
but other factors such as the degree of visibility improvement
resulting from the use of controls and the remaining useful life of the
facility, comparisons of incremental costs across sources are often not
meaningful in making BART determinations.
    Comment: Multiple comments were submitted concerning the cost
effectiveness calculations. The comments expressed concern regarding
the dismissal of controls that are cost-effective even with the State's
$7,300/ton and $10 million/dv thresholds claiming that semi-dry flue
gas desulfurization (SDFGD), selective non-catalytic reduction (SNCR),
and selective catalytic reduction (SCR) were eliminated from
consideration as BART for PGE Boardman through inappropriately inflated
costs, inclusion of costs not allowed by EPA's Cost Control Manual,
underestimated control effectiveness, and arbitrarily and

shortened equipment life due to excessively long assumed installation
times.
    Response: As explained in the SIP submittal, ODEQ evaluated and
considered the costs, control efficiencies of the various control
technologies, and expected equipment life in its BART determination.
ODEQ used an independent contractor (ERG) to evaluate PGE's cost
estimates for the Boardman facility and concluded that while PGE's
estimates were significantly higher than ERG's, PGE's estimates better
reflected real world costs, and were appropriate for the PGE Boardman
BART analysis. More specifically, ERG concluded that the actual cost of
retrofits is, in general, higher than the estimates provided by the
EPA's Cost Control Manual. ODEQ explained that difference is due to a
dramatic increase is labor and material costs in recent years. See
Regional Haze SIP submittal, Attachment 7.2, ODEQ response to comments,
I.1.a-c, for more detail.
    In reviewing ODEQ's BART determination, EPA recognized that the
cost estimates ODEQ relied on included two capital cost line items that
are not normally included when using the EPA Cost Control manual. The
effect of including these two line items is that the capital costs are
likely ``at the high end'' of the capital cost range estimate. See EPA
Boardman BART Assessment at 2. To assess the impact of ODEQ's decision
to include these items in the cost estimate, EPA further evaluated the
cost effectiveness value for SDFGD without including the two capital
cost line items, and concluded that the cost effectiveness of SDFGD
would drop from $5,535/ton to $4,810/ton. Although EPA considers the
$4,810/ton to better reflect the true cost of SDFGD, we conclude that
the $725/ton difference between the two estimates would not materially
affect ODEQ's evaluation. EPA notes that the incremental visibility
improvement between SDFGD and DSI-1 (0.4 lb/mmBtu) would only be 0.4 dv
at the most impacted Class I area. Additionally, EPA found that with an
SO2 limit of 0.3 lb/mmBtu in 2018, the incremental
visibility improvement between the two control technologies would only
be 0.26 dv in the most impacted Class I area. In addition, while SDFGD
would achieve a cumulative visibility improvement of 10.6 dv in all
impacted Class I areas and DSI-1 \2\ would achieve a cumulative
visibility improvement of 7.0 dv and DSI-2 \3\ would achieve a
cumulative improvement of 9.3 dv in 2018, when the facility ceases to
burn coal at the end of 2020, the cumulative visibility improvement
would be 31.46 dv. See Regional Haze SIP submittal, Appendix D at D-
137, 168 and 171. When choosing between the two technologies, it is
reasonable for the state to consider the sizable capital cost
difference between SDFGD and DSI, and the relatively small incremental
visibility improvement between the two technologies in light of the
shutdown of the unit in 2020. In EPA's view, ODEQ's final selection of
BART would not have changed even if the cost effectiveness had been
adjusted to reflect the EPA Cost Manual.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ DSI-1 is defined as the initial DSI system performance that
would achieve an SO2 emission limit of 0.4 lbs/mmBtu by
July 1, 2014.
    \3\ DSI-2 is defined as the DSI system performance that would
achieve an SO2 emission limit of 0.3 lbs/mmBtu by July 1,
2018.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regarding the comments concerning control effectiveness of SCR,
SNCR, and SDFGD technologies, ODEQ determined the control effectiveness
of these control options by evaluating actual emissions data from other
sources employing similar types controls, taking into consideration
that BART limit must be achieved at all times for a retrofit
installation at Boardman. ODEQ's evaluation determined that the
Boardman facility could not achieve the lower emission rate suggested
by the commenter. See Regional Haze SIP submittal, Appendix D at D-14
through D-18, and Attachment 7.2, ODEQ response to comments 1I.1.b.
    Comment: A commenter notes that on September 1, 2010, Oregon
released a proposed rulemaking for public comment that included BART
requirements for PGE Boardman based on a variety of closure dates,
including 2020. The comment claims that the September 2010 proposal
required installation of SDFGD and SNCR for a 2020 shutdown but that
the requirements for a 2020 closure date were relaxed significantly in
the plan EPA proposes to approve. The commenter does not believe there
is sufficient justification for this relaxation of BART and states the
relaxation appears arbitrary.
    Response: As mentioned above, EPA's action relates to the BART
determinations contained in the Regional Haze Plan that was submitted
to EPA on December 20, 2010. EPA explained the basis for its decision
to approve ODEQ's BART determination in the notice of proposed
rulemaking. 76 FR at 12660-12662. Although ODEQ may have considered
establishing more stringent BART emission limits at an earlier point,
this does not provide a basis for disapproving its final BART
determination.
    Comment: A commenter stated that it is unclear whether the current
regulatory language proposed by ODEQ would actually result in the
``closure'' of the Boardman facility because each closure option states
that it only applies to the ``Foster-Wheeler boiler'' at Boardman. To
ensure no other coal-fired boiler could be installed at Boardman the
commenter requested ODEQ to strike the commercial name of the boiler
from OAR<PHONE_NUMBER> through OAR<PHONE_NUMBER> and replace it with
either ``any coal-fired boiler'' or ``the Boardman coal-fired power
plant.''
    Response: The State rules are clear in that they apply to the
Foster-Wheeler boiler which is the only coal-fired unit at the Boardman
facility. The rules do not prevent the plant owners from applying for a
permit to construct a new power plant at the facility or to use the
existing equipment with different fuel. See Oregon Regional Haze SIP
submittal Attachment 1.1 at 8-9. However any new facility or change in
the operations would need to be permitted in compliance with the CAA
requirements. Further, the rules explain that notwithstanding the
definition of netting basis and the process for reducing plant site
emission limits (PSEL) in the Oregon rules, the netting basis and the
PSEL are reduced to zero on the date which the boiler permanently
ceases to burn coal. See OAR<PHONE_NUMBER>(1)(e). Thus, as ODEQ
explained to the Environmental Quality Commission, ``Any new facility
or repowering of the existing coal-fired boiler would be permitted as a
new facility without relying on the reductions from the existing plant
and in compliance with all applicable state and federal requirements,
including modern air pollution controls and air quality impact
analysis.'' See Regional Haze SIP submittal, Attachment 1.1 at 9.
    Comment: Multiple commenters explained that if ODEQ decides that
the SO2 emission limit, based on DSI, is BART for PGE
Boardman, it should require PGE to design and install the DSI system to
achieve 90% efficiency and require that PGE optimize its effectiveness
for the duration of its operation.
    Response: ODEQ established SO2 BART limits for the
Boardman facility based on an estimated 35% minimal efficiency of DSI
in removing SO2 from the flue gas. A similar comment
regarding DSI efficiency was made to ODEQ during the State public
comment period. In response ODEQ stated:

    ``ODEQ is not aware of a DSI system, such as proposed for the
PGE Boardman Plant, to have been installed on a similar sized unit.
DSI has been used on smaller units that also included fabric
filters, which both contribute to improved efficiency of the DSI
system. ODEQ's proposal relies on the existing ESP and does not
include the installation of a fabric filter, which would cost over
$100 million. In addition, the ducts between the air heater and the
ESP are much larger at the Boardman Plant. It is more difficult to
adequately disperse the sorbent reagent in larger ducts and still
maintain enough residence time for the sorbent to react with the
SO2. [A] thirty five percent efficiency is probably a
little conservative, but a BART limit should be achievable at all
times.'' Regional Haze SIP submittal, Attachment 7.2 response to
comment I.6.a.

EPA considers ODEQ's response regarding the uncertainties associated
with the use of DSI to be reasonable.
    Comment: One comment stated that DSI for PGE Boardman for the
shutdown within five years of EPA approval of the SIP may well be an
appropriate cost effective technology choice capable of reducing
SO2 emissions in a manner consistent with BART requirements.
Similarly, a commenter states that ODEQ should require that PGE install
DSI ``as expeditiously as practicable'' and contends it could be
installed in a year's time.
    Response: As explained above, ODEQ determined that DSI is a cost
effective control technology for SO2. The Oregon BART rule
at OAR<PHONE_NUMBER> (1)(b)(A) requires that the Boardman facility
achieve an SO2 emission limit of 0.4 lbs/mmBtu by July 1,
2014, about two years ahead of the five-year maximum time allowed by
the CAA for the installation of BART. As ODEQ explains, ``The proposed
compliance date [of July 1, 2014] allows PGE three years to design the
DSI system and conduct the pilot study, which may involve evaluation of
several types of sorbent materials and injection locations, along with
particulate matter stack testing.'' See Regional Haze SIP submittal,
Attachment 7.2, response to comment I.7. Given the uncertainties
associated with the use of DSI on a plant such as Boardman, installing
DSI in this timeframe satisfies the requirement of ``as expeditiously
as practicable'' and is within the timeframe specified in the CAA.
    ODEQ determined that the Boardman facility need install any
additional emission controls if the Foster-Wheeler boiler is shut down
within five years of approval of the SIP. ODEQ did not consider DSI as
a required control technology for this scenario. See Regional Haze SIP
submittal, Appendix D at D-142. EPA agrees with ODEQ's conclusion that
it would be unreasonable to require the installation of DSI for such a
short period of operation before shutting down.
    Comment: One comment stated that the capital and operating costs of
DSI for Boardman were overstated. Some comments explained that although
ODEQ has not provided sufficient data on the costs of DSI, it is
possible that DSI could also meet ODEQ's cost-effectiveness threshold,
even if used for only a few years as in the case were the Boardman
facility were to shut down within five years of EPA final approval of
the SIP.
    Response: ODEQ's analysis for determining the capital and direct
annual costs for DSI are described on pages D-130-131 of Appendix D of
the Regional Haze SIP submittal. EPA's Boardman BART Assessment
acknowledged that PGE's capital cost estimates for various control
technologies are ``likely at the high end of the range for capital cost
estimates,'' but as discussed above, even if the cost estimates are at
the high end, considering the cost differential between DSI and SDFGD,
and given the visibility improvements associated with selecting DSI
based on an early shut down, the variation in cost estimates was not
determinative. Therefore, EPA believes that the methods used by ODEQ to
determine effectiveness and cost of DSI, and a determination not to
require DSI if the Boardman facility ceases to burn coal within five
years of EPA's approval, are reasonable and within the State's
discretion. See also the response to comment above.
    Comment: One comment stated that DSI is a technically feasible
control technology at PGE Boardman. This comment explained that (1) the
size of the coal-fired unit is inconsequential as to whether DSI is
technically feasible, and (2) while DSI is not in widespread use on
larger boilers like the Boardman facility, that is most likely due to
availability of sorbents, costs, and SO2 control
effectiveness when compared to other SO2 control
technologies like semi-dry or wet scrubbers, not technical feasibility.
    Related comments suggest that it is improper for ODEQ to discard
DSI as technically infeasible merely because its installation triggers
addition legal obligations under the Clean Air Act (or State law). In
the commenter's view, ODEQ cannot conclude that DSI is technically
infeasible because it would interfere with PGE's compliance with state
mercury reduction goals, or result in adverse impacts to the
particulate matter air quality standards. The comment states that as a
legal matter PGE must comply with requirements associated with Regional
Haze, and those intended to prevent significant deterioration of air
quality and any requirements to reduce hazardous pollutants such as
mercury. In the commenter's view, even if DSI were genuinely
technically infeasible, PGE would not be entitled to the de facto
exemption from BART that it requests because the ODEQ has an obligation
to identify, and prescribe, a technically feasible BART limit.
    Response: As explained above, ODEQ determined that DSI is
technically feasible for PGE Boardman. Although ODEQ was not aware of a
similar sized unit with a DSI system, this control technology has been
used on smaller units that also included fabric filters which
contribute to improved efficiency of the DSI system. However, ODEQ's
BART determination does not require the installation of a new fabric
filter system, which would cost about an additional $100 million, but
instead relies on the use of the existing ESP at the Boardman facility.
Furthermore, there is additional question regarding DSI performance
because of the size of the ducts between the air heater and the ESP.
These ducts are much larger at the Boardman Plant than the ducts on
smaller power plants where DSI has been demonstrated. This adds to the
uncertainty in DSI performance because it is more difficult to
adequately disperse the sorbent reagent in larger ducts and still
maintain enough residence time for the sorbent to react with the
SO2. Thus, there is some uncertainty as to how well DSI will
work on this particular facility. See Regional Haze SIP submittal,
Appendix D at D-129, D-169 and D-170 (ODEQ's basis for projected DSI
system efficiency).
    Although ODEQ concluded that DSI is technically feasible, it also
took into consideration that DSI at this size and type of facility may
result in unacceptable levels of PM or mercury emissions. This could
result in potential additional costs if the levels of these pollutants
were high enough to require additional controls. Specifically, ODEQ
recognized that a significant increase in PM2.5 emissions was a
possible outcome of installing DSI, and that if this occurred, the
installation would be subject to the PSD requirements. The resulting
BACT or air quality impact analysis would require additional controls
which would increase the cost of DSI. Regional Haze SIP submittal,
Appendix D at D-142 and D-170. Thus, rather than avoiding other legal
requirements, ODEQ considered them in its overall cost effectiveness
evaluation

of the technology. ODEQ did not exclude the technology because it might
trigger other legal obligation but considered them in the overall
evaluation of what was the most reasonable BART for this facility.
    Comment: One commenter stated that Oregon did not appropriately
consider the lower emission limitation of 0.3 lb/mmBtu (DSI-2) as BART,
but instead only considered it to meet reasonable further progress by
2018. The commenter explained that the DSI-2 limitation was not
identified as technologically infeasible or cost prohibitive for BART,
and that ODEQ has provided no reason why the study of DSI-2 cannot be
conducted ``as expeditiously as practicable'' but no later than five
years after EPA approves the state SIP.
    Response: ODEQ determined that due to uncertainties associated with
DSI-1 performance at a large coal fired-facility the size of Boardman
without a baghouse, the higher, more conservative limit of 0.40 lb/
mmBtu could be achieved with a high degree of certainty in 2014,
whereas the lower limit of 0.3 lb/mmBtu would not be achieved with DSI-
2 until 2018, when future refinements in the DSI system performance
could be achieved, possibly in combination with ultra-low sulfur coal
or supplemental fuels, such as biomass. Regional Haze SIP submittal,
Appendix D at D-169- D-170; 76 FR 12662. See also response to comment
above.
    Comment: One commenter stated that loopholes in Oregon's
Administrative Rules (OAR<PHONE_NUMBER> through<PHONE_NUMBER>) included
provisions that would inappropriately remove the requirement for DSI.
In the commenter's view the condition under which DSI would not be
required, including a post-BART determination of technical
infeasibility or the triggering of additional CAA obligations should
not be allowed to preclude the installation of BART, which is by
definition technically feasible. The commenter also asks that in
approving Oregon's SIP submittal, EPA interpret the conditions
contained in OAR<PHONE_NUMBER>(3) as requiring EPA approval or
concurrence with ODEQ's determinations prior to implementation of
relaxed standards. Additionally, a commenter questions whether the
provision would require or allow any public comment on ODEQ's
determination that DSI-1 or DSI-2 is technologically infeasible, would
inhibit compliance with Oregon's mercury rules, or would trigger PSD
applicability.
    Response: As explained above, ODEQ determined that DSI is a
technically feasible SO2 control technology for PGE Boardman
and that it can achieve 0.4 lb/mmBtu at a removal efficiency of about
35%. Regional Haze SIP submittal, Appendix D at D-127-128. While ODEQ
determined that DSI was technically feasible, it also acknowledged that
the technology has only been demonstrated at smaller boilers than the
one at the Boardman facility.\4\ Thus, the State determined it was
appropriate to require additional studies. The rules being approved
today provide that technical studies to evaluate the SO2
limits, and the potential side effects of those limits, must be
conducted in accordance with a plan that is preapproved by ODEQ. These
studies will fully evaluate and review the effectiveness and use of DSI
technology at this facility. See OAR<PHONE_NUMBER>(2), see also Regional
Haze SIP submittal, Attachment 7.2 at 17. The rules first establish a
limit of 0.40 lb/mmBtu by July 1, 2014 and 0.30 lb/mmBtu by July 1,
2018. Then the rules describe the specific conditions under which the
SO2 limit of 0.40 lb/mmBtu or 0.30 lb/mmBtu may be exceeded.
OAR<PHONE_NUMBER>(3). Specifically, the rules provide that if upon
completion of the specified pilot studies, the results shows that DSI
is not capable of achieving the BART limit of 0.4 lb/mmBtu (between
July1, 2014 and June 30, 2018) or 0.30 lb/mmBtu (between July 1, 2018
and December 31, 2020), or would prevent compliance with specified
mercury limits or cause a significant air quality impact for PM10 or
PM2.5, the SO2 emission limit may be modified up to 0.55lb/
mmBtu through a modification to the facility's Title V permit. The rule
being approved today is clear as to what conditions must be satisfied
in order for the source to exceed the 0.4 lb/mmBtu or 0.3 lb/mmBtu
limits. The rule provides, that if applicable, the study may propose a
limit that exceeds the 0.4 lb/mmBtu or 0.3 lb/mmBtu limits based on
reduction of the sulfur dioxide emission limits to the maximum extent
possible through the use of DSI or other SO2 control system
of equal or lower cost, including but not limited to the use of low
sulfur coal, provided that the proposed emission limit may not exceed
0.55lb/mmBtu heat input as a 30-day rolling average. The conditions and
parameters under which the 0.3 lb/mmBtu or 0.4 lb/mmBtu emission limits
may be exceeded, are spelled out in the rule and were considered by EPA
in its review of the proposed rule. Those conditions and parameters,
including the alternate upper limit of 0.55 lb/mmBtu, are being
approved today and additional approval by EPA is not necessary.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ EPA also recognizes some uncertainty regarding the
effectiveness of this control at the Boardman facility. For example,
EPA's ``Air Pollution Control Technology Fact Sheet'' states that
``SO2 removal efficiencies [of DSI] are significantly
lower that wet systems, between 50% and 60% for calcium-based
sorbents. Sodium- based dry sorbent injection into the duct can
achieve up to 80% control efficiencies.'' EPA-452/F-03-034 at 5. EPA
realizes that the proposed control limit of 0.4 lb/mmBtu is below
the range cited in this fact sheet, but given the larger size of the
Boardman boiler and the State's desire not to overload the existing
ESP PM control system, EPA believes that the proposed emission limit
is reasonable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regarding the commenter's concern relating to the opportunity for
public input into this potential change in emission limits, the rule
allows for the PGE Boardman's Title V operating permit to be modified
to include a federally enforceable permit limit based on the
performance of DSI demonstrated by the pilot study, as performed
according to OAR<PHONE_NUMBER>(2)(c). Thus, before the 0.4 lb/mmBbtu or
0.3 lb/mmBtu emission limits may be exceeded, the source would need to
comply with the conditions in OAR<PHONE_NUMBER>(3) including submitting
a complete application for a Title V permit modification. The permit
modification would be considered a significant permit modification
under OAR<PHONE_NUMBER> and a category 3 permit under Oregon Title V
rules. See OAR<PHONE_NUMBER>(1). A category 3 permit is subject to the
procedures in OAR<PHONE_NUMBER>(3)(c) which include general public
notice, opportunity for public comment and EPA review. In addition, the
results of the pilot study, the technical basis and the recommended
alternative limit would be provided to the public for review and
comment during the Title V modification process.
    Comment: The commenter also asks EPA to re-evaluate the
environmental benefits from Oregon's SIP submittal based on the
emission limit and reductions that EPA approval of the SIP would
actually require: 0.55 lb/mmBtu, which the Oregon SIP submittal does
require to be met, regardless of the results of the pilot studies.
    Response: The visibility improvements to Class I areas impacted by
PGE Boardman were based on the SO2 and NOX BART
emission limits to be achieved by 2014, and on further reasonable
progress emission limits for SO2 achieved by 2018. The
SO2 BART limit of 0.40 lb/mmBtu is the applicable limit as
of July 1, 2014 unless specific conditions are satisfied and ODEQ
approves an alternate limit. See OAR<PHONE_NUMBER>(2)(c)(E).
Additionally, ODEQ explains that an alternate limit must not exceed
0.55 lb/mmBtu in order to achieve at least a 0.5 dv improvement

in visibility in Mt. Hood Wilderness Area. See Id. and the Regional
Haze SIP submittal, Appendix D ``Control Effectiveness'' table at D-168
and text on D-170. Thus, the State considered the visibility
improvements associated with a 0.55 lb/mmBtu and the additional
analysis requested by the commenter is not necessary.
    Comment: One commenter stated that visibility improvements and
potential improvements in other non-air quality-related impacts in the
region would occur as a result of the installation of SCR at the
Boardman facility and should be taken into consideration in determining
BART the facility. This commenter further explained that NOX
emissions can contribute to excess nitrogen in ecosystems, which can
alter the chemical balance of the soils and waterbodies with serious
consequences for plant and animal life. For these reasons, the
commenter concluded, ODEQ must require installation of SCR and new low
NOX burners with overfire air as BART for the Boardman
facility.
    Response: The estimated visibility improvements that could be
achieved over current conditions with each combination of technically
feasible controls were taken into consideration in determining BART for
Boardman. See 76 FR 12611. More specifically, ODEQ determined that LNB
and MOFA are BART for NOX because they are cost effective
and provided a 1.45 dv improvement at Mt. Hood Wilderness Area (the
most impacted Class I area) and a cumulative visibility improvement of
8.75 dv in all 14 impacted Class I areas. ODEQ determined that DSI is
BART for SO2 because it is cost effective and provides a
significant (0.96 dv) improvement at Mt. Hood Wilderness Area and a 7.4
dv improvement in all impacted Class I areas by July 1, 2014. For
further comparison of visibility improvement associated with the
various control technologies and timeframes see the Regional Haze SIP
submittal, Appendix D, at D-169-172. The contribution of the facility's
NOX emissions to excess nitrogen in ecosystems, were not
taken into account in the PGE Boardman BART analysis. However, it would
be extremely difficult to quantify, or even to qualitatively assess,
the impacts of added nitrogen from one source on an ecosystem. The
impacts of deposition related effects such as nutrient enrichment and
eutrophication vary considerably across ecosystems. EPA does not
consider it unreasonable for ODEQ to have not taken these impacts into
account in making its BART determination.
    Comment: One commenter urged the Department to consider and
maintain the 2018 and five year closure options for the Boardman
facility. The commenter requested that ODEQ also look at additional
cost-benefit and technical analysis for the 2018 option.
    Response: ODEQ's final Regional Haze SIP submittal includes rules
which allow PGE Boardman to either cease burning coal within five years
of EPA's approval of the rules or to cease burning coal by December 31,
2020. PGE must notify ODEQ in writing no later than July 1, 2014 if it
chooses to cease coal burning within 5 years of this action. If it
chooses that option, one set of emission limits apply; however, if it
chooses to continue operating until December 31, 2020, more stringent
emission limits apply. A 2018 shutdown option was considered by ODEQ
but removed from the final SIP submittal because PGE indicated that it
intended to operate the Boardman facility until the end of 2020, and
because ODEQ has no authority to require a facility to shut down by a
certain date under the BART Rule absent a commitment by the source to
do so.
    Comment: A commenter stated that the regulation should specify that
if PGE continues to operate the Boardman facility as a coal-fired
facility after its selected closure deadline the operating permit for
the facility shall be deemed void. The commenter also requested that to
avoid any uncertainty regarding the availability of relief due to non-
compliance, the regulation should explicitly state that the state, EPA
and citizens may apply for both injunctive and civil penalty relief.
    Response: A violation of a federally enforceable state rule or
permit is subject to liability as provided in section 113 of the CAA,
42 USC 7413, and would be addressed as appropriate under applicable
state or federal law. Additional language to restate the existing
authority is not necessary.
    Comment: One commenter requested that EPA correct or remove certain
factual statements that were included in the notice of proposed
rulemaking. Specifically, the commenter requested changes to state that
PGE Boardman is a 617 megawatt (MW) plant instead of 584 MW plant and
that it commenced construction on ``December 6, 1979'' instead of in
``1975''.
    Response: EPA agrees that the PGE Boardman coal fired power plant
is capable of producing about 617 MW of electricity, not 584 MW.
According to ODEQ's BART report, construction on the PGE Boardman plant
began in 1975. However, the first air contaminant discharge permit from
ODEQ to PGE for Boardman was dated December 6, 1979.
    Comment: One commenter stated that for the five-year closure option
at Boardman, ODEQ should require additional interim controls that would
reduce emissions in the remaining five remaining years of operation.
    Response: OAR<PHONE_NUMBER> provides alternate requirements in the
event the owner elects to permanently cease burning coal within five
years of EPA's SIP approval. Under this alternative, the NOX
emission limit of 0.23 lb/mmBtu applies beginning July 1, 2011, unless
the source satisfies the requirements in OAR<PHONE_NUMBER>(2)(a) and it
is demonstrated by December 31, 2011, that the emission limit of 0.23
lb/mmBtu cannot be achieved with combustion controls, in which case the
ODEQ may grant an extension to July 1, 2013. OAR 340-223-080(2)(a).
    Comment: One commenter requested that the NOX,
SO2 and PM emission limits for PGE Boardman include emission
limits during startup and shutdown.
    Response: The BART rules include do startup and shutdown emission
limits for the Boardman facility. See OAR<PHONE_NUMBER>(1)(d). These
limits, which are three-hour rolling averages, are: Sulfur dioxide,
1.20 lb/mmBtu, Nitrogen oxide, 0.70 lb/mmBtu, and particulate matter
emissions must be minimized to the extent practicable pursuant to
approved startup and shutdown procedures in accordance with OAR 340-
214-0310.
    Comment: As stated above, NPCA incorporated into their comments a
number of comment letters that had previously been submitted to ODEQ.
Many of the comments contained in these letters relate to emission
limits or comments about technologies associated with the ``no
closure'' option provided in prior versions of OAR<PHONE_NUMBER>, 0060,
and 0070, and ODEQ's BART determination based on PGE operating the
coal-fired boiler at the Boardman facility until 2040.
    Response: The Oregon Regional Haze Plan submitted to EPA included
revisions to the State's regional haze rules at OAR<PHONE_NUMBER>
through<PHONE_NUMBER>. In this action, EPA is taking final action to
approve a revision to the Oregon SIP which incorporates OAR 340-223-
0010 through<PHONE_NUMBER> and specifically includes OAR<PHONE_NUMBER>.
As provided in OAR<PHONE_NUMBER>, and as explained in the notice of
proposed rulemaking, upon EPA's final approval of OAR<PHONE_NUMBER>, OAR
340-223-0060 and<PHONE_NUMBER> are repealed as a matter of law. 76 FR
12662-12663. Thus, compliance

with the ``no closure option'' or operating until 2040 is no longer an
alternative. Therefore, the BART determination associated with that
option is no longer relevant and responses to comments regarding it are
unnecessary.

III. Final Action

    EPA is approving the BART measures in the Oregon Regional Haze plan
as meeting the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) of the Clean
Air Act with respect to the 1997 8-hour ozone and 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS. In
addition, EPA is approving portions of the Oregon Regional Haze Plan,
submitted on December 20, 2010, as meeting the requirements set forth
in section 169A of the Act and in 40 CFR 51.308(e) regarding BART. EPA
is also approving the Oregon submittal as meeting the requirements of
40 CFR 51.308(d)(2) and (4)(v) regarding the calculation of baseline
and natural conditions for the Mt. Hood Wilderness Area, Mt. Jefferson
Wilderness Area, Mt. Washington Wilderness Area, Kalmiopsis Wilderness
Area, Mountain Lakes Wilderness Area, Gearhart Mountain Wilderness
Area, Crater Lake National Park, Diamond Peak Wilderness Area, Three
Sisters Wilderness Area, Strawberry Mountain Wilderness Area, Eagle Cap
Wilderness Area, and Hells Canyon Wilderness Area, and the statewide
inventory of emissions of pollutants that are reasonably anticipated to
cause or contribute to visibility impairment in any mandatory Class I
Federal Area.

IV. Oregon Notice Provision

    Oregon Revised Statute 468.126, which remains unchanged since EPA
last approved Oregon's SIP, 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.

V. Scope of EPA Approval

    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).

VI. Statutory and Executive Orders Review

    Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this
action is not a ``significant regulatory action'' and therefore is not
subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget. For this
reason, this action is also not subject to Executive Order 13211,
``Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy
Supply, Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001). This action
merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and imposes
no additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law.
Accordingly, the Administrator certifies that this rule will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities
under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). Because
this rule approves pre-existing requirements under state law and does
not impose any additional enforceable duty beyond that required by
state law, it 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).
    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 section 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. This action
also does not have Federalism implications because it does not have
substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between
the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power
and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as
specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999). This
action merely approves a state rule implementing a Federal standard,
and does not alter the relationship or the distribution of power and
responsibilities established in the CAA. This rule also is not subject
to Executive Order 13045 ``Protection of Children from Environmental
Health Risks and Safety Risks'' (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), because
it approves a state rule implementing a Federal standard.
    In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. In this
context, in the absence of a prior existing requirement for the State
to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS), EPA has no authority to
disapprove a SIP submission for failure to use VCS. It would thus be
inconsistent with applicable law for EPA, when it reviews a SIP
submission, to use VCS in place of a SIP submission that otherwise
satisfies the provisions of the CAA. Thus, the requirements of section
12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995
(15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply. This rule does not impose an
information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).
    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other
required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule

cannot take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2).
    Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review
of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for
the appropriate circuit by September 6, 2011. Filing a petition for
reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect
the finality of this rule for the purposes of judicial review nor does
it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be
filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action.
This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its
requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

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

    Dated: June 17, 2011.
Dennis J. McLerran,
Regional Administrator, Region 10.

    Part 52, chapter I, title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations is
amended as follows:

PART 52--[AMENDED]

0
1. The authority citation for Part 52 continues to read as follows:

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

Subpart MM--Oregon

0
2. Section 52.1970 is amended by adding and reserving paragraph
(c)(150), and adding paragraph (c)(151) to read as follows:

Sec.  52.1970  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (150) [Reserved]
    (151) On December 20, 2010, the Oregon Department of Environmental
Quality submitted a SIP revision to meet the regional haze requirements
of Clean Air Act section 169A and the interstate transport requirements
of Clean Air Act section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) as it applies to
visibility for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS and 1997 PM2.5
NAAQS.
    (i) Incorporation by reference.
    (A) December 10, 2010, letter from ODEQ to the Oregon Secretary of
State requesting filing of permanent rule amendments to OAR 340-223.
    (B) December 10, 2010, filed copy of State ``Certificate and Order
for Filing'' verifying the effective date of December 10, 2010, for OAR
340-223-0010, OAR<PHONE_NUMBER>, OAR<PHONE_NUMBER>, OAR<PHONE_NUMBER>, OAR
340-223-0050 and OAR<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (C) The following revised sections of the Oregon Administrative
Rules, Chapter 340:
    (1)<PHONE_NUMBER> Purpose of Rules, effective December 10, 2010.
    (2)<PHONE_NUMBER> Definitions, effective December 10, 2010.
    (3)<PHONE_NUMBER> BART and Additional Regional Haze Requirements for
the Foster-Wheeler Boiler at the Boardman Coal-Fired Power Plant
(Federal Acid Rain Program Facility ORISPL Code 6106), effective
December 10, 2010.
    (4)<PHONE_NUMBER> Federally Enforceable Permit Limits, effective
December 10, 2010.
    (5)<PHONE_NUMBER> Alternative Regional Haze Requirements for the
Foster-Wheeler Boiler at the Boardman Coal-Fired Power Plant (Federal
Acid Rain Program Facility ORISPL Code 6106), effective December 10,
2010.
    (6)<PHONE_NUMBER> Alternative Requirements for the Foster-Wheeler
Boiler at the Boardman Coal-Fired Power Plant (Federal Acid Rain
Program Facility ORISPL code 6106) Based Upon Permanently Ceasing the
Burning of Coal Within Five Years of EPA Approval of the Revision to
the Oregon Clean Air Act State Implementation Plan Incorporating OAR
Chapter 340, Division 223, effective December 10, 2010.
    (ii) Additional material.
    (A) The portion of the SIP revision relating to statewide inventory
of emissions of pollutants that are reasonably anticipated to cause or
contribute to visibility impairment in any mandatory Class I Federal
Area and the calculation of baseline and natural visibility conditions
in Oregon Class I areas, and determination of current and 2018
visibility conditions in Oregon Class I areas.
    (B) [Reserved]

0
3. Section 52.1973 is amended by adding paragraph (g) to read as
follows:

Sec.  52.1973  Approval of plans.

* * * * *
    (g) Visibility protection. (1) EPA approves portions of a Regional
Haze SIP revision submitted by the Oregon Department of Environmental
Quality on December 20, 2010, and adopted by the Oregon Department of
Environmental Quality Commission on December 9, 2010, as meeting the
requirements of Clean Air Act section 169A and 40 CFR 51.308(e)
regarding Best Available Retrofit Technology. The SIP revision also
meets the requirements of 40 CFR 51.308(d)(2) and (d)(4)(v) regarding
the calculation of baseline and natural conditions for the Mt. Hood
Wilderness Area, Mt. Jefferson Wilderness Area, Mt Washington
Wilderness Area, Kalmiopsis Wilderness Area, Mountain Lakes Wilderness
Area, Gearhart Mountain Wilderness Area, Crater Lake National Park,
Diamond Peak Wilderness Area, Three Sisters Wilderness Area, Strawberry
Mountain Wilderness Area, Eagle Cap Wilderness Area, and Hells Canyon
Wilderness Area, and the statewide inventory of emissions of pollutants
that are reasonably anticipated to cause or contribute to visibility
impairment in any mandatory Class I Federal Area. The SIP revision also
meets the requirements of Clean Air Act section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) as
it applies to visibility for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS and 1997
PM2.5 NAAQS.
    (2) [Reserved]

0
4. Section 52.1989 is amended by adding paragraph (b) to read as
follows:

Sec.  52.1989  Interstate Transport for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS and
1997 PM2.5 NAAQS.

* * * * *
    (b) On December 20, 2010, the Oregon Department of Environmental
Quality submitted a Regional Haze SIP revision, adopted by the Oregon
Environmental Quality Commission on December 9, 2010. EPA approves the
portion of this submittal relating to section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) as it
applies to visibility for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS and 1997
PM2.5 NAAQS. The SIP revision also meets the requirements of
Clean Air Act section 169A and 40 CFR 51.308(e) regarding Best
Available Retrofit Technology and the requirements of 40 CFR
51.308(d)(2) and (d)(4)(v) regarding the calculation of baseline and
natural conditions for the Mt. Hood Wilderness Area, Mt. Jefferson
Wilderness Area, Mt Washington Wilderness Area, Kalmiopsis Wilderness
Area, Mountain Lakes Wilderness Area, Gearhart Mountain Wilderness
Area, Crater Lake National Park, Diamond Peak Wilderness Area, Three
Sisters Wilderness Area, Strawberry Mountain Wilderness Area, Eagle Cap
Wilderness Area, and Hells Canyon Wilderness Area, and the statewide
inventory of emissions of pollutants that are reasonably anticipated to
cause or contribute to visibility impairment in any mandatory Class I
Federal Area.

[FR Doc. 2011-16635 Filed 7-1-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 54 (Tuesday, March 20, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 12237-12238]
[FR Doc No: 2018-05591]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

[Docket No. DOT-NHTSA-2017-0104]

Notice and Request for Comments

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA),
Department of Transportation.

ACTION: Notice and request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, this
notice announces that the Information Collection Request (ICR)
abstracted below is being forwarded to the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB) for review and comments. A Federal Register Notice with a
60-day comment period soliciting comments on the following information
collection was published on December 28, 2017. Comments received from
the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, Inc.

DATES: Comments must be submitted on or before April 19, 2018.

ADDRESSES: Send comments regarding the burden estimate, including
suggestions for reducing the burden, to the Office of Management and
Budget, Attention: Desk Officer for the Office of the Secretary of
Transportation, 725 17th Street, NW, Washington, DC 20503.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gary R. Toth, Office of Data
Acquisitions (NSA-0100),<PHONE_NUMBER>, National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration, Room W53-505, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE,
Washington, DC 20590. Please identify the relevant collection of
information by referring to its OMB Control Number.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    Title: Crash Investigation Sampling System (CISS).
    OMB Control Number: 2127-0706.
    Type of Request: Collection of motor vehicle crash data.
    Abstract: The collection of crash data that support the
establishment and enforcement of motor vehicle regulations that reduce
the severity of injury and property damage caused by motor vehicle
crashes is authorized under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle
Safety Act of 1966 (Pub. L. 89-563, Title 1, Sec. 106, 108, and 112).
The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has been
investigating high severity crashes and collecting crash data through
its National Automotive Sampling System (NASS) Crashworthiness Data
System (NASS-CDS) and Special Crash Investigation (SCI) programs. The
NASS was designed in the 1970's to collect data. Due to population
shifts and vehicle transformation, among many other changes since NASS
was established, the crash population has changed in the country. At
the same time, the data needs of the transportation community have
significantly increased over the last three decades. The scope of
traffic safety studies has also been expanding. For example, the
primary focus of the original NASS design was to enhance
crashworthiness by providing detailed information about crush damage,
restraint system performance and injury mechanisms. In recent years,
however, the transportation community has been increasingly more
interested in adding data elements related to what happens before a
crash and related crash avoidance safety countermeasures.
    Recognizing the importance as well as the limitations of the past
NASS system, NHTSA has undertaken a modernization effort to upgrade our
data systems by improving the information technology infrastructure,
updating the data we collect and reexamining the sample sites. The goal
of this overall modernization effort was to develop a new crash data
system that meets current and future data needs. The newly redesigned
investigation-based acquisition system is a nationally-representative
sample of passenger vehicle crashes. This newly-designed system, the
Crash Investigation Sampling System (CISS), will focus on detailed
investigation of passenger vehicle crashes. CISS was implemented in
2015 with a goal of thirty-two (32) sites fully operational by July of
2018.
    For the investigation-based acquisition process, once a crash has
been selected for investigation, crash technicians locate, visit,
measure, and photograph the crash scene; locate, inspect, and
photograph vehicles; conduct a telephone or personal interview with the
involved individuals or surrogate; and obtain and record injury
information received from various medical data sources. These data are
used to describe and analyze circumstances, mechanisms, and
consequences of serious motor vehicle

crashes in the United States. The collection of interview data aids in
this effort.
    NHTSA published a notice in the Federal Register with a 60-day
public comment period to announce this proposed information collection
on December 28, 2017, Volume 82, Number 248.
    Affected Public: Passenger Motor Vehicle Operators.
    Estimated Number of Respondents: 9,450.
    Frequency: Annual.
    Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 5,605 hours.
    Estimated Total Annual Burden Cost: $140,125.
    Public Comments Invited: You are asked to comment on any aspects of
this information collection, including (a) whether the proposed
collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of
the functions of the Department, including whether the information will
have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the Department's estimate
of the burden of the proposed information collection; (c) ways to
enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information to be
collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of
information on respondents, including the use of automated collection
techniques or other forms of information technology.

    Authority: The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995; 44 U.S.C.
Chapter 35, as amended; and 49 CFR 1:48.

Terry T. Shelton,
Associate Administrator, National Center for Statistics and Analysis.
[FR Doc. 2018-05591 Filed 3-19-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-59-P