[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 45 (Tuesday, March 8, 2011)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 12651-12664]
[FR Doc No: 2011-5198]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R10-OAR-2011-0035, FRL-9276-6]

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

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve a State Implementation Plan (SIP)
revision, submitted by the State of Oregon on December 20, 2010, with
supplemental information submitted February 1, 2011, 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 proposing to approve a portion of the SIP
submittal, as meeting certain requirements of the regional haze
program, including the Federal regulations for best available retrofit
technology (BART).

DATES: Written comments must be received at the address below on or
before April 7, 2011.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R10-
OAR-2011-0035, by one of the following methods:
     http://www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line
instructions for submitting comments.
     E-mail: Keith Rose at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>     Mail: Keith Rose, EPA Region 10, Office of Air, Waste and
Toxics, AWT-107, 1200 Sixth Avenue, Suite 900, Seattle, WA 98101.
     Hand Delivery/Courier: EPA Region 10, 1200 Sixth Avenue,
Suite 900, Seattle, WA 98101. Attention: Keith Rose, Office of Air,
Waste and Toxics, AWT-107. Such deliveries are only accepted during
normal hours of operation, and special arrangements should be made for
deliveries of boxed information.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R10-OAR-
2011-0035. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the public docket without change and may be made available online at
http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information
provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you
consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through http://www.regulations.gov or e-mail. The http://www.regulations.gov Web site
is an ``anonymous access'' system, which means EPA will not know your
identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of
your comment. If you send an e-mail comment directly to EPA, without
going through http://www.regulations.gov, your e-mail address will be
automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is
placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you
submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name
and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any
disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to
technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA
may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid
the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of
any defects or viruses. For additional information about EPA's public
docket visit the EPA Docket Center homepage at http://www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm.
    Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the http://www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available (e.g., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute). Certain other material,
such as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard
copy form. Publicly available docket materials are available either
electronically at http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the
Office of Air, Waste and Toxics, EPA Region 10, 1200 Sixth Avenue,
Seattle, WA 98101. EPA requests that if at all possible, you contact
the individual listed below to view the hard copy of the docket.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Keith Rose at telephone number
(206) 553-1949<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or the above EPA, Region 10 address.

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

Table of Contents

I. Background for EPA's Proposed Action
    A. Definition of Regional Haze
    B. Regional Haze Rules and Regulations
    C. Roles of Agencies in Addressing Regional Haze
    D. Interstate Transport for Visibility
II. Requirements for Regional Haze SIPs
    A. The CAA and the Regional Haze Rule
    B. Determination of Baseline, Natural, and Current Visibility
Conditions
    C. Consultation With States and Federal Land Managers
    D. Best Available Retrofit Technology
III. EPA's Analysis of Oregon's Regional Haze SIP
    A. Affected Class I Areas
    B. Baseline and Natural Conditions and Uniform Rate of Progress
    C. Oregon Emissions Inventories
    D. Sources of Visibility Impairment in Oregon Class I Areas
    E. Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART)
IV. EPA's Analysis of Oregon's Regional Haze Rules
V. EPA's Analysis of Whether the Oregon Regional Haze SIP Submittal
Meets Interstate Transport Requirements
VI. What action is EPA proposing?
VII. Oregon Notice Provision
VIII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. Background for EPA's Proposed Action

    In the CAA Amendments of 1977, Congress established a program to
protect and improve visibility in the national parks and wilderness
areas. See CAA section 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 CAA, EPA, in consultation
with the Department of Interior, promulgated a list of 156 areas
where visibility is identified as an important value. 44 FR 69122
(November 30, 1979). The extent of a mandatory Class I area includes
subsequent changes in boundaries, such as park expansions. 42 U.S.C.
7472(a). Although States and Tribes may designate as Class I
additional areas which they consider to have visibility as an
important value, the requirements of the visibility program set
forth in section 169A of the CAA apply only to ``mandatory Class I
Federal areas.'' Each mandatory Class I Federal area is the
responsibility of a ``Federal Land Manager.'' 42 U.S.C. 7602(i).
When we use the term ``Class I area'' in this action, we mean a
``mandatory Class I Federal area.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In this action, EPA is proposing to approve certain provisions of
Oregon's Regional Haze SIP submission addressing the requirements for
best available retrofit technology (BART), the calculation of baseline
and natural visibility conditions, and the statewide inventory of
visibility-impairing pollutants. EPA is also proposing to approve the
provisions of Oregon's SIP submittal addressing BART as meeting
Oregon's obligations under section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) of the CAA for
visibility. EPA is not taking action today on those provisions of the
Regional Haze SIP submittal related to reasonable progress goals and
the long term strategy.

A. Definition of Regional Haze

    Regional haze is impairment of visual range or colorization caused
by emission of air pollution produced by numerous sources and
activities, located across a broad regional area. The sources include
but are not limited to, major and minor stationary sources, mobile
sources, and area sources including non-anthropogenic sources.
Visibility impairment is primarily caused by fine particulate matter
(PM2.5) or secondary aerosol formed in the atmosphere from
precursor gasses (e.g., sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, and in some
cases, ammonia and volatile organic compounds). Atmospheric fine
particulate reduces clarity, color, and visual range of visual scenes.
Visibility-reducing fine particulates are primarily composed of
sulfate, nitrate, organic carbon compounds, elemental carbon, and soil
dust, and impair visibility by scattering and absorbing light. Fine
particulate can also cause serious health effects and mortality in
humans, and contributes to environmental effects such as acid
deposition and eutrophication.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ See 64 FR at 35715.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Data from the existing visibility monitoring network, the
``Interagency Monitoring of Protected Visual Environments'' (IMPROVE)
monitoring network, show that visibility impairment caused by air
pollution occurs virtually all the time at most national parks and
wilderness areas. Average visual range in many Class I areas in the
Western United States is 100-150 kilometers, or about one-half to two-
thirds the visual range that would exist without anthropogenic air
pollution.\3\ Visibility impairment also varies day-to-day and by
season depending on variation in meteorology and emission rates.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Regional Haze Rules and Regulations

    In section 169A of the 1977 CAA Amendments, Congress created a
program for protecting visibility in the nation's national parks and
wilderness areas. This section of the CAA establishes as a national
goal the ``prevention of any future, and the remedying of any existing,
impairment of visibility in Class I areas which impairment results from
manmade air pollution.'' CAA section 169A(a)(1). On December 2, 1980,
EPA promulgated regulations to address visibility impairment in Class I
areas that is ``reasonably attributable'' to a single source or small
group of sources, i.e., ``reasonably attributable visibility
impairment''. See 45 FR 80084. These regulations represented the first
phase in addressing visibility impairment. EPA deferred action on
regional haze that emanates from a variety of sources until monitoring,
modeling, and scientific knowledge about the relationships between
pollutants and visibility impairment were improved.
    Congress added section 169B to the CAA in 1990 to address regional
haze issues. EPA promulgated a rule to address regional haze on July 1,
1999 (64 FR 35713) (the RHR). The RHR revised the existing visibility
regulations to integrate into the regulation provisions addressing
regional haze impairment and established a comprehensive visibility
protection program for Class I areas. The requirements for regional
haze, found at 40 CFR 51.308 and 51.309, are included in EPA's
visibility protection regulations at 40 CFR 51.300-309. Some of the
main elements of the regional haze requirements are summarized in
section III of this rulemaking. The requirement to submit a regional
haze SIP applies to all 50 States, the District of Columbia and the
Virgin Islands.\4\ 40 CFR 51.308(b) requires States to submit the first
implementation plan addressing regional haze visibility impairment no
later than December 17, 2007.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

C. Roles of Agencies in Addressing Regional Haze

    Successful implementation of the Regional Haze Program will require
long-term regional coordination among States, Tribal governments, and
various Federal agencies. As noted above, pollution affecting the air
quality in Class I areas can be transported over long distances, even
hundreds of kilometers. Therefore, to effectively address the problem
of visibility impairment in Class I areas, States need to develop
strategies in coordination with one another, taking into account the
effect of emissions from one jurisdiction on the air quality in
another.
    Because the pollutants that lead to regional haze impairment can
originate from across State lines, EPA has encouraged the States and
Tribes to address visibility impairment from a regional perspective.
Five regional planning organizations \5\ (RPOs) were created nationally
to address regional haze and related issues. One of the main objectives
of the RPOs is to develop and analyze data and conduct pollutant
transport modeling to assist the States or Tribes in developing their
regional haze plans.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See http://www.epa.gov/air/visibility/regional.html for
description of the regional planning organizations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Western Regional Air Partnership (WRAP),\6\ one of the five
RPOs nationally, is a voluntary partnership of State, Tribal, Federal,
and local air agencies dealing with air quality in the West. WRAP
member States include: Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Idaho,
Montana, New Mexico, North Dakota, Oregon, South Dakota, Utah,
Washington, and Wyoming. WRAP Tribal members include Campo Band of
Kumeyaay Indians, Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes, Cortina
Indian Rancheria, Hopi Tribe, Hualapai Nation of the Grand Canyon,
Native Village of Shungnak, Nez Perce Tribe, Northern Cheyenne Tribe,
Pueblo of Acoma, Pueblo of San Felipe, and Shoshone-Bannock Tribes of
Fort Hall.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ The WRAP Web site can be found at http://www.wrapair.org.

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

D. Interstate Transport for Visibility

    On July 18, 1997, EPA promulgated new NAAQS for 8-hour ozone and
for PM2.5. 62 FR 38652. Section 110(a)(1) of the CAA
requires States to submit a plan to address certain requirements for a
new or revised NAAQS within three years after promulgation of such
standards, or within such shorter time as EPA may prescribe. Section
110(a)(2) of the CAA lists the elements that such new plan submissions
must address, as applicable, including section 110(a)(2)(D)(i), which
pertains to the interstate transport of certain emissions.
    On April 25, 2005, EPA published a ``Finding of Failure to Submit
SIPs for Interstate Transport for the 8-hour Ozone and PM2.5
NAAQS.'' 70 FR 21147. This included a finding that Oregon and other
States had failed to submit SIPs to address interstate transport of
emissions affecting visibility and started a 2-year clock for the
promulgation of Federal Implementation Plans (FIPs) by EPA, unless the
States made submissions to meet the requirements of section
110(a)(2)(D)(i) and EPA approves such submissions. Id.
    On August 15, 2006, EPA issued guidance on this topic entitled
``Guidance for State Implementation Plan (SIP) Submissions to Meet
Current Outstanding Obligations Under section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) for the
8-Hour Ozone and PM2.5 National Ambient Air Quality
Standards'' (2006 Guidance). We developed the 2006 Guidance to make
recommendations to States for making submissions to meet the
requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) for the 1997 8-hour ozone
standards and the 1997 PM2.5 standards.
    As identified in the 2006 Guidance, the ``good neighbor''
provisions in section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) of the CAA require each State to
have a SIP that prohibits emissions that adversely affect other States
in ways contemplated in the statute. Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) contains
four distinct requirements related to the impacts of interstate
transport. The SIP must prevent sources in the State from emitting
pollutants in amounts which will: (1) Contribute significantly to
nonattainment of the NAAQS in other States; (2) interfere with
maintenance of the NAAQS in other States; (3) interfere with provisions
to prevent significant deterioration of air quality in other States; or
(4) interfere with efforts to protect visibility in other States.
    With respect to establishing that emissions from sources in the
State would not interfere with measures in other States to protect
visibility, the 2006 Guidance recommended that States make a submission
indicating that it was premature, at that time, to determine whether
there would be any interference with measures in the applicable SIP for
another State designed to ``protect visibility'' until the submission
and approval of regional haze SIPs. Regional haze SIPs were required to
be submitted by December 17, 2007. See 74 FR 2392. At this later point
in time, however, EPA believes it is now necessary to evaluate such
110(a)(2)(D)(i) submissions from a State to ensure that the existing
SIP, or the SIP as modified by the submission, contains adequate
provisions to prevent interference with the visibility programs of
other States, such as for consistency with the assumptions for controls
relied upon by other States in establishing reasonable progress goals
to address regional haze.
    The Regional Haze Program, as reflected in the RHR, recognizes the
importance of addressing the long-range transport of pollutants for
visibility and encourages States to work together to develop plans to
address haze. The regulations explicitly require each State to address
its ``share'' of the emission reductions needed to meet the reasonable
progress goals for neighboring Class I areas. States, working together
through a regional planning process, are required to address an agreed-
upon share of their contribution to visibility impairment in the Class
I areas of their neighbors. 40 CFR 51.308(d)(3)(ii). Given these
requirements, we anticipate that regional haze SIPs will contain
measures that will achieve these emissions reductions, and that these
measures will meet the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i).
    As a result of the regional planning efforts in the West, all
States in the WRAP region contributed information to a Technical
Support System (TSS) which provides an analysis of the causes of haze,
and the levels of contribution from all sources within each State to
the visibility degradation of each Class I area. The WRAP States
consulted in the development of reasonable progress goals, using the
products of this technical consultation process to co-develop their
reasonable progress goals for the Western Class I areas. The modeling
done by the WRAP relied on assumptions regarding emissions over the
relevant planning period and embedded in these assumptions were
anticipated emissions reductions in each of the States in the WRAP,
including reductions from BART and other measures to be adopted as part
of the State's long term strategy for addressing regional haze. The
reasonable progress goals in the draft and final regional haze SIPs
that have now been prepared by States in the West accordingly are
based, in part, on the emissions reductions from nearby States that
were agreed on through the WRAP process.
    Oregon submitted a Regional Haze SIP on July 16, 2009 to address
the requirements of the RHR. On September 11, 2009, EPA determined that
this SIP submission was complete. Oregon submitted a revised Regional
Haze SIP on December 20, 2010, replacing the July 2009 submission. On
February 1, 2011, Oregon provided EPA additional information to address
the requirements of the RHR and the good neighbor provisions of section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II)) of the Act, regarding visibility for the 1997 8-
hour ozone NAAQS and the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS. EPA has reviewed
the submittal and concluded at this time to propose to take action on
only certain elements of Oregon's Regional Haze SIP. EPA is required to
take final action either to approve Oregon's SIP submittal, or
otherwise to take action to meet the requirements of section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) regarding visibility on or before June 21, 2011.\7\
EPA is proposing to find that certain elements of Oregon's Regional
Haze SIP submittal meet these requirements. In particular, as explained
in section V of this action, EPA is proposing to find that the BART
measures in Oregon's Regional Haze SIP submittal, which EPA is
proposing to approve in this action, will also mean that the Oregon SIP
meets the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) regarding
visibility for the 1997 8-hour ozone and 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ Wildearth Guardians v. Jackson, Case No. 4:09-CV-02453-CW
(N.D. Calif) (as modified by Jan 14, 2011 Order Granting Motion to
Modify Consent Decree).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Requirements for Regional Haze SIPs

A. The CAA and the Regional Haze Rule

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

the purpose of eliminating or reducing visibility impairment. The
specific regional haze SIP requirements are discussed in further detail
below.

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

    The RHR establishes the deciview (dv) as the principal metric for
measuring visibility. This visibility metric expresses uniform changes
in haziness in terms of common increments across the entire range of
visibility conditions, from pristine to extremely hazy conditions.
Visibility is determined by measuring the visual range (or deciview),
which is the greatest distance, in kilometers or miles, at which a dark
object can be viewed against the sky. The deciview is a useful measure
for tracking progress in improving visibility, because each deciview
change is an equal incremental change in visibility perceived by the
human eye. Most people can detect a change in visibility at one
deciview.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ The preamble to the RHR provides additional details about
the deciview. 64 FR 35714, 35725 (July 1,1999).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

C. Consultation With States and Federal Land Managers

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

D. Best Available Retrofit Technology

    Section 169A of the CAA directs States to evaluate the use of
retrofit controls at certain larger, often uncontrolled, older
stationary sources in order to address visibility impacts from these
sources. Specifically, section 169A(b)(2)(A) of the CAA requires States
to revise their SIPs to contain such measures as may be necessary to
make reasonable progress towards the natural visibility goal, including
a requirement that certain categories of existing major stationary
sources \9\ built between 1962 and 1977 procure, install, and operate
the ``Best Available Retrofit Technology'' as determined by the State.
States are directed to conduct BART determinations for such sources
that may be anticipated to cause or contribute to any visibility
impairment in a Class I area. Rather than requiring source-specific
BART controls, States also have the flexibility to adopt an emissions
trading program or other alternative program as long as the alternative
provides greater reasonable progress towards improving visibility than
BART.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ The set of ``major stationary sources'' potentially subject
to BART is listed in CAA section 169A(g)(7).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On July 6, 2005, EPA published the Guidelines for BART
Determinations Under the Regional Haze Rule at appendix Y to 40 CFR
Part 51 (hereinafter referred to as the ``BART Guidelines'') to assist
States in determining which of their sources should be subject to the
BART requirements and in determining appropriate emission limits for
each applicable source. In making a BART applicability determination
for a fossil fuel-fired electric generating plant with a total
generating capacity in excess of 750 megawatts, a State must use the
approach set forth in the BART Guidelines. A State is encouraged, but
not required, to follow the BART Guidelines in making BART
determinations for other types of sources.
    States must address all visibility-impairing pollutants emitted by
a source

in the BART determination process. The most significant visibility-
impairing pollutants are sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, and fine
particulate matter. EPA has indicated that States should use their best
judgment in determining whether volatile organic compounds or ammonia
compounds impair visibility in Class I areas.
    Under the BART Guidelines, States may select an exemption threshold
value for their BART modeling, below which a BART-eligible source would
not be expected to cause or contribute to visibility impairment in any
Class I area. The State must document this exemption threshold value in
the SIP and must state the basis for its selection of that value. Any
source with emissions that model above the threshold value would be
subject to a BART determination review. The BART Guidelines acknowledge
varying circumstances affecting different Class I areas. States should
consider the number of emission sources affecting the Class I areas at
issue and the magnitude of the individual sources' impacts. Generally,
an exemption threshold set by the State should not be higher than 0.5
deciview.
    In their SIPs, States must identify potential BART sources,
described as ``BART-eligible sources'' in the RHR, and document their
BART control determination analyses. The term ``BART-eligible source''
used in the BART Guidelines means the collection of individual emission
units at a facility that together comprises the BART-eligible source.
In making BART determinations, section 169A(g)(2) of the CAA requires
that States consider the following factors: (1) The costs of
compliance, (2) the energy and non-air quality environmental impacts of
compliance, (3) any existing pollution control technology in use at the
source, (4) the remaining useful life of the source, and (5) the degree
of improvement in visibility which may reasonably be anticipated to
result from the use of such technology. States are free to determine
the weight and significance to be assigned to each factor.
    A regional haze SIP must include source-specific BART emission
limits and compliance schedules for each source subject to BART. Once a
State has made its BART determination, the BART controls must be
installed and in operation as expeditiously as practicable, but no
later than five years after the date EPA approves the regional haze
SIP. CAA section 169(g)(4). 40 CFR 51.308(e)(1)(iv). In addition to
what is required by the RHR, general SIP requirements mandate that the
SIP must also include all regulatory requirements related to
monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting for the BART controls on the
source. States have the flexibility to choose the type of control
measures they will use to meet the requirements of BART.

III. EPA's Analysis of Oregon's Regional Haze SIP

A. Affected Class I Areas

    There are 12 mandatory Class I areas, or portions of such areas
within Oregon: 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. Hells Canyon Wilderness Area is
shared with the State of Idaho. See 40 CFR 81.425. Oregon is
responsible for developing reasonable progress goals (RPGs) for these
12 Class I areas. Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (ODEQ)
consulted with the appropriate State air quality agency in Washington,
Idaho, California, and Nevada to determine Oregon's contribution to
haze in neighboring States' Class I areas. See chapter 13, section 13.2
of the Oregon Regional Haze SIP submittal. See also the WRAP Technical
Support Document, February 28, 2011 (WRAP TSD) supporting this
action.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ EPA evaluated the technical work products of the WRAP used
by Oregon in support of this Regional Haze SIP submittal. The
results of that evaluation are included in the WRAP Technical
Support Document.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Baseline and Natural Conditions and Uniform Rate of Progress

    Oregon, using data from the IMPROVE monitoring network and analyzed
by WRAP, established baseline and natural visibility conditions as well
as the uniform rate of progress (URP) to achieve natural visibility
conditions by 2064 for all Oregon Class I areas within its borders.
    Baseline visibility for the most-impaired (20% worst) days and the
least-impaired (20% best) days was calculated from monitoring data
collected by IMPROVE monitors. Not every Class I area has an IMPROVE
monitor, rather a monitor in a Class I area may represent the air
quality and visibility conditions for more than a single Class I area.
The Class I areas that are represented by a monitor in a near-by Class
I area were determined by the States and the IMPROVE Steering
Committee. This decision was based on the Class I areas in a group
having the same general visibility conditions. IMPROVE monitors are
located in six Oregon Class I areas and represent all 12 Oregon Class I
areas. Specifically, the Oregon Class I areas are segregated into six
groups. These groups and Class I areas are:
     North Cascades: Mt. Hood Wilderness Area.
     Central Cascades: Mt. Jefferson, Mt. Washington, and Three
Sisters Wilderness Areas.
     Southern Cascades: Crater Lake National Park, Diamond
Peak, Mountain Lakes, and Gearhart Wilderness Areas.
     Coast Range: Kalmiopsis Wilderness Area.
     Eastern Oregon: Strawberry Mountain and Eagle Cap
Wilderness Areas.
     Eastern Oregon/Western Idaho: Hells Canyon Wilderness
Area.
    In general, WRAP based their estimates of natural conditions on EPA
guidance, Guidance for Estimating Natural Visibility Conditions Under
the Regional Haze Program (EPA-45/B-03-0005 September 2003) but
incorporated refinements which EPA believes provides results more
appropriate for western States than the general EPA default approach.
See section 2.D and 2.E of the WRAP TSD, supporting this action.
    Visibility on 20% worst days during the 2000-04 baseline period for
each group of Oregon Class I areas is:
     North Cascades--14.9 dv
     Central Cascades--15.3 dv
     Southern Cascades--13.7 dv
     Coast Range--15.5 dv
     Eastern Oregon--18.6 dv
     Eastern Oregon/Western Idaho--18.6 dv
    Visibility on 20% best days during the 2000-04 baseline period for
each group of Oregon Class I areas is:
     North Cascades--2.2 dv
     Central Cascades--3.0 dv
     Southern Cascades--1.7 dv
     Coast Range--6.3 dv
     Eastern Oregon--4.5 dv
     Eastern Oregon/Western Idaho--5.5 dv
    Natural visibility conditions on the 20% worst days for each group
of Class I areas are:
     Northern Cascades--8.4 dv
     Central Cascades--8.8 dv
     Southern Cascades--7.6 dv
     Coast Range--9.4 dv
     Eastern Oregon--8.9 dv
     Eastern Oregon/Western Idaho -8.3 dv
    The 2018 Uniform Rate of Progress (URP) goal for the 20% worst days
in each group of Class I areas is:

     North Cascades--13.4 dv
     Central Cascades--13.8 dv
     Southern Cascades--12.3 dv
     Coast Range--14.1 dv
     Eastern Oregon -16.3 dv
     Eastern Oregon/Western Idaho--16.2 dv
    Baseline visibility conditions, 2064 natural conditions, and
reductions needed to achieve the 2018 URP for the 20% worst days for
each group of Oregon Class I areas are identified in table 6-1 of
chapter 6 of the Oregon Regional Haze Plan.
    Based on our evaluation of the State's baseline and natural
conditions analysis, EPA is proposing to find that Oregon has
appropriately determined baseline visibility for the average 20% worst
and 20% best days, and natural visibility conditions for the average
20% worst days in each Oregon Class I area. See sections 2.D and 2.E of
the WRAP TSD supporting this action.

C. Oregon Emissions Inventories

    There are three main categories of air pollution emission sources:
point sources, area sources, and mobile sources. Point sources are
larger stationary sources that emit air pollutants. Area sources are
large numbers of small sources that are widely distributed across an
area, such as residential heating units, re-entrained dust from unpaved
roads or windblown dust from agricultural fields. Mobile sources are
sources such as motor vehicles, locomotives and aircraft.
    EPA's Regional Haze Rule requires a statewide emission inventory of
pollutants that are reasonably anticipated to cause or contribute to
visibility impairment in any mandatory Class I area. 40 CFR
51.308(d)(4)(v). The WRAP, with data supplied by the States, compiled
emission inventories for all major source categories in Oregon and
estimated the 2002 baseline year (based on an average of 2000-2004).
Oregon also compiled an emission inventory for 2018. Emission estimates
for 2018 were generated from anticipated population growth, growth in
industrial activity, and emission reductions from implementation of
control measures, e.g., implementation of BART limitations and motor
vehicle tailpipe emissions.
    Chapter 8 of the Oregon Regional Haze SIP submittal discusses how
emission estimates were determined for statewide emission inventories
by pollutant and source category. Appendix A of the Oregon Regional
Haze Plan identifies the Oregon emission inventory by county. Detailed
estimates of the emissions used in the modeling conducted by the WRAP
for Oregon can be found at the WRAP Web site: http://vista.cira.colostate.edu/TSS/Results/Emissions.aspx.
    The Oregon Regional Haze SIP submittal identifies total emissions
for all visibility-impairing pollutants including sulfur dioxide
(SO2), nitrogen oxides (NOX), volatile organic
compounds (VOC), organic carbon (OC), elemental carbon (EC), other fine
particulate (PM2.5), coarse particulate matter (PM coarse),
and ammonia (NH3). These emission estimates were partitioned
into nine emission source categories: Point source, area source, on-
road mobile, off-road mobile, anthropogenic fire (prescribed fire and
agricultural field burning), natural fire, road dust, and fugitive
dust. See chapter 8.1 of the Oregon Regional Haze SIP submittal for
additional detail on how the statewide emission inventory was
developed, and for tables showing the emissions inventory for each
pollutant by source category. The methods that WRAP used to develop
these emission inventories are described in more detail in the WRAP
TSD. As explained in the WRAP TSD, emissions were calculated using best
available data and approved EPA methods. See WRAP TSD section 3.
    Point sources in Oregon account for 39% (18,493 tons/year) of total
State-wide SO2 emissions. The most significant point sources
are coal-fired electrical generation units. Area sources (such as
Pacific offshore shipping, wood combustion, and natural gas combustion)
contribute about 21% (9,932 tons/year) to Oregon statewide
SO2 emissions. On-road mobile and off-road mobile sources
contribute a combined total of 21% (9,981 tons/year) of the Oregon
SO2 emissions. In the Oregon Regional Haze SIP submittal,
the State projected SO2 reductions of 57% in point sources,
15% in area sources, 94% combined reduction in on-road and off-road
mobile source emissions, and 17% in anthropogenic fire emissions by
2018 (see Chapter 8 of the Oregon Regional Haze Plan).
    Upon further review, EPA determined that the 57% reduction in point
source emissions was partially based on WRAP's assumption of an
SO2 emission rate of 0.15 lb/mmBtu (presumptive limit for
utility boilers identified in the BART Guidelines, see Section IV.
E.4.) from the PGE Boardman coal fired power plant by 2018. The
remaining SO2 point emission reductions in Oregon would be
achieved through ongoing and new industrial control requirements, and
projected source retirements and shutdowns. However, the BART
determination for PGE Boardman based on a 2020 plant lifetime, which
EPA proposes to approve in this rulemaking (see section III. E.4
below), achieves an SO2 emission limit of 0.30 lb/mmBtu by
2018, or about 4,000 ton/year less SO2 reductions than
assumed by WRAP. Thus, statewide point source emission reductions of
SO2 are estimated by EPA to be 35% by 2018. However, if PGE
Boardman ceases to burn coal by 2020, as it would under the proposed
approved BART determination, there will be an estimated 76% reduction
is SO2 from point sources by 2020 which will provide a
substantial improvement at that time in visibility in all 14 Class I
areas currently impacted by PGE Boardman.
    On-road mobile sources account for 43% (111,646 tons/year) of the
total NOX statewide emissions in Oregon. Off-road mobile
sources account for 21% (53,896 tons/year), natural fire accounts for
11% (27,397 tons/year), and point sources account for 10% (26,160 tons/
year) of the statewide NOX emissions. The State expects on-
road and off-road mobile source emissions to decline by 62% and 40%,
respectively, by 2018, due to Federally mandated emission standards for
mobile sources. The State also projects NOX emissions from
point sources will decrease by 5% (or 1,213 tons/year). After
evaluating the assumptions on which this 5% reduction was based, it
appears that the 5% reduction does not include presumptive
NOX emission reductions from the PGE Boardman facility by
2018. The presumptive NOX emission limit for utility
boilers, like PGE Boardman boiler, is 0.23 lb/mmBtu. EPA BART
Guidelines (Section IV (E)(5)). The current NOX emission
limit for the PGE Boardman is 0.43 lb/mmBtu, which results in emissions
of about 10,300 tons/year (based on 2007 actual emissions). The BART
determination for PGE Boardman based on it ceasing to burn coal by
2020, which EPA proposes to approve in this rulemaking (see section
III. E.4 below), achieves a NOX emission limit of 0.23 lb/
mmBtu, or annual emissions of about 5,500 tons/year (a 47% reduction)
by 2013. Thus, in EPA's estimation, there will be about a 23% reduction
in NOX emissions from all Oregon point sources by 2018. The
State expects emissions from natural fire to remain unchanged by 2018.
The net effect of these projected emissions results in a 37% overall
reduction in NOX emissions in Oregon by 2018.
    Most of the organic carbon emissions in Oregon are from natural
fire, which fluctuate greatly from year to year. For 2002, about 68% of
statewide organic carbon emissions in Oregon were due to natural fire.
Anthropogenic fire

(prescribed fire, agricultural field burning, and outdoor residential
burning) accounts for 9% of the statewide organic carbon emissions. A
variety of other area sources contribute a total of 19% of the
statewide organic carbon, with residential wood combustion being a
significant component. The State expects area source emissions to
increase slightly (7%) by 2018, due mostly to population increases. The
State projects the most significant reductions in organic carbon by
2018 will be from point sources (80%) due to anticipated emission
controls, off-road mobile (36%) due to implementation of the Federal
mobile source regulations, and anthropogenic fire (28%) due to stricter
Oregon rules controlling prescribed burning, agricultural burning, and
residential burning. However, because natural fire emissions are
expected to remain unchanged, total organic carbon emissions are
estimated to decline by only 3% by 2018.
    Elemental carbon is associated with incomplete combustion. Like
organic carbon, the primary source of elemental carbon in Oregon is
natural fire (61%), area sources (such as wood combustion) (15%), and
off-road mobile sources (12%). The State projects an increase of
elemental carbon area source emissions by 6% due to population growth.
Oregon estimates a decrease of combined on-road and off-road mobile
source elemental carbon by about 65% by 2018. This reduction in mobile
source emissions results from new Federal mobile source emission
regulations. However, because elemental carbon emissions are dominated
by natural fire, which are expected to remain unchanged, the State
projects only an 11% reduction in State wide elemental carbon emissions
by 2018.
    Other fine particulates, particles with an aerodynamic diameter of
less than 2.5 micrometers (PM2.5), are emitted directly from
a variety of area sources. Area sources are responsible for 34% of all
directly-emitted PM2.5 emissions in Oregon. Wind-blown dust
from agriculture, mining, construction, and roads contribute about 25%
to the total statewide PM2.5 emissions. The State projects a
12% increase in area source emissions due to population and economic
growth, and wind-blown dust emissions to remain unchanged by 2018,
resulting in a statewide 2% reduction in total PM2.5 by
2018.
    Coarse particulate matter (PM coarse) is particulate matter within
the size range of 2.5-10 micrometers. PM coarse emission sources
include windblown dust, rock crushing and processing, material
transfer, and open pit mining. Windblown dust is the dominant source of
PM coarse emissions in Oregon at 104,274 tons/year (60%). Statewide PM
coarse emissions are estimated to increase by 17% in 2018, primarily
because emissions from fugitive dust sources (construction, paved
roads, and unpaved roads) are expected to increase 106% due to
population growth, and windblown dust will remain unchanged.
    Volatile organic compound (VOC) emissions are dominated by biogenic
emissions from forests and vegetation, which account for about 70% of
statewide Oregon VOC emissions. In Oregon, agricultural crops and urban
vegetation are also significant sources. Other sources of VOCs are
mobile sources at 8%, and area sources (industrial and commercial
facilities, and residential solvent use) at 15%. Oregon projects that
statewide area source emissions will increase by 36% by 2018, primarily
due to population growth. As a result, the State estimates that total
Oregon VOC emissions will increase by 2% by 2018.
    Ammonia (NH3) does not directly impair visibility but
can be a precursor to the formation of particulate in the atmosphere
through chemical reaction with SO2 and NOX to
form ``secondary aerosol'' sulfate and nitrate. About 80% of the
NH3 emissions in Oregon come from agricultural-related
activities, primarily livestock operations and farm fertilizer
applications. Since the NH3 emissions from these
agricultural sources are expected to remain unchanged by 2018, and
mobile source emissions of NH3 are projected to increase by
45% (1,463 tons/year) by 2018, Oregon projects that there will be a
total 2% increase of NH3 emissions by 2018.

D. Sources of Visibility Impairment in Oregon Class I Areas

    Each pollutant species has its own visibility impairing property; 1
[mu]g/m\3\ of sulfate at high humidity, for example, is more effective
in scattering light than 1 [mu]g/m\3\ of organic carbon and therefore
impairs visibility more than organic carbon. Following the approach
recommended by the WRAP, and as explained more fully below, Oregon used
a two step process to identify the contribution of each source or
source category to existing visibility impairment. First, ambient
pollutant concentration by species (such as sulfate, nitrate, organic
carbon, and elemental carbon) was determined from the IMPROVE data
collected for each group of Class I areas. These concentrations were
then converted into deciview values to distribute existing impairment
among the measured pollutant species. The deciview value for each
pollutant species was calculated by using the ``revised IMPROVE
equation'' (See Section 2.C of the WRAP TSD) to calculate extinction
from each pollutant species concentration. Extinction, in inverse
megameters, was then converted to deciview using the equation defining
deciview. Second, the Comprehensive Air Quality Model with Extensions
(CAMx) and PM Source Apportionment Technology (PSAT) models were used
to determine which sources and source categories contributed to the
ambient concentration of each pollutant species. Thus, impairment was
distributed by source and source category.
    After considering the available models, the WRAP and Western States
selected two source apportionment analysis tools. The first source
apportionment tool was the Comprehensive Air Quality Model with
Extensions (CAMx) in conjunction with PM Source Apportionment
Technology (PSAT). This model uses emission source characterization,
meteorology and atmospheric chemistry for aerosol formation to predict
pollutant concentrations in the Class I area. The predicted results are
compared to measured concentrations to assess accuracy of model output.
CAMx PSAT modeling was used to determine source contribution to ambient
sulfate and nitrate concentrations. The WRAP used state-of-the-science
source apportionment tools within a widely used photochemical model.
EPA has reviewed the PSAT analysis and considers the modeling,
methodology, and analysis acceptable. See section 6.A of the WRAP TSD.
    The second tool was the Weighted Emissions Potential (WEP) model,
used primarily as a screening tool to decide which geographic source
regions have the potential to contribute to haze at specific Class I
areas. WEP does not account for atmospheric chemistry (secondary
aerosol formation) or removal processes, and thus is used for
estimating inert particulate concentrations. The model uses back
trajectory wind flow calculations and resident time of an air parcel to
determine source and source category and location for ambient organic
carbon, elemental carbon, PM2.5, and coarse PM
concentrations. These modeling tools were the state-of-the-science and
EPA has determined that these tools were appropriately used by WRAP for
regional haze planning. Description of these tools and our evaluation
of them

are described in more detail in section 6 of the WRAP TSD.
    Section 9.2.1 of the Oregon SIP submittal explains that sources in
areas outside of the modeling domain (i.e., portions of northern
Canada, southern Mexico, Pacific offshore, and global sources)
contribute between 40% to 60% of the sulfate that impairs visibility in
all of Oregon's Class I areas on the 20% worst days. SO2
sources within the WRAP region contribute about 33% of sulfate that
impairs visibility in Oregon Class I areas. Of the SO2
contribution from WRAP States, about 50% of the SO2 comes
from point, area, and mobile sources in Oregon.
    The PSAT results also show that between 15 to 33% of the nitrate
impairing visibility in all of Oregon's Class I areas comes from
sources outside of the modeling domain, with the remainder from sources
within the WRAP region.
North and Central Cascades Class I Areas
    The PSAT results for sulfate show that for the 20% worst days
during 2000-2004 the North and Central Cascades Class I areas are
mostly impacted by sulfate from a combination of SO2 point,
area and mobile sources in Washington, Oregon, and marine shipping in
the Pacific offshore region (see Oregon Regional Haze SIP submittal
Figures 9.2.1-1 through Figures 9.2.1-6). The mobile source
contribution to sulfate pollution is expected to decline significantly
by 2018 due to the implementation of the Federal low sulfur diesel fuel
rule, which went into effect in 2006 for on-road mobile sources, and
took effect for non-road mobile sources in 2010.
    The PSAT results for nitrate show that a majority of the nitrate
impacting the North and Central Cascades Class I areas is from mobile
sources in Oregon and Washington (see Oregon Regional Haze SIP
submittal Figures 9.2.2-1 through Figures 9.2.2-6). PSAT results
predict about a 50% reduction in nitrate concentrations in these area
by 2018 due to a 50% reduction in NOX emissions from Oregon
and Washington mobile sources.
    Based on the WEP model results, the organic carbon in the North
Cascades on the 20% worst visibility days comes mostly from area
sources and natural fires in Oregon, with a small contribution from
areas sources in Washington. On the 20% worst visibility days at North
Cascades, most of the primary PM2.5 contributions come from
area and fugitive dust sources in Oregon, and to a lesser extent area
and point sources in Washington.
    For the 20% worst visibility days in the Central Cascades, most of
the organic carbon comes from a combination of area source emissions
and natural and anthropogenic fire in Oregon. For the 20% worst
visibility days in the Central Cascades, the OC comes primarily from
Oregon area sources. For the 20% worst visibility days in the Central
Cascades, most of the PM2.5 comes from area sources in
Oregon.
Southern Cascades Class I Areas
    For the 20% worst days in the three Class I areas in the Southern
Cascades, overall visibility impairment due to sulfate are lower
compared to the Northern and Central Cascade Class I areas. Most of the
sulfate impacting these Southern Cascade Class I areas is from point
sources in Oregon, Washington, California, and Canada. Pacific offshore
shipping is also a substantial contributor of sulfate to this area.
    For the 20% worst days in Southern Cascades, the most significant
sources of nitrate are mobile sources in Oregon and Washington. The
impact from these sources is expected to decrease by about 50% by 2018
due to Federal mobile source emission control measures.
    For the 20% worst visibility days in the Southern Cascades,
approximately 90% of the organic carbon contribution came from natural
fires in 2002. Emissions from natural fires are expected to be
unchanged by 2018.
Coast Range Class I Area
    The only Class I area in the Coast Range group is the Kalmiopsis
Wilderness Area. The most significant sources of sulfate to the
Kalmiopsis Wilderness Area are natural fires in Oregon, and marine
shipping in the Pacific Ocean. Both of these sources are expected to be
unchanged by 2018.
    A majority of the nitrate impacting the Kalmiopsis Wilderness Area
is from mobile sources in Oregon and from marine shipping in the
Pacific Ocean. Smaller contributions come from Washington and
California mobile sources. Mobile source contributions to this area are
expected to decrease by about 50% by 2018.
    For the 20% worst visibility days in the Kalmiopsis Wilderness,
almost all of organic carbon for the 2002 base year came from natural
fire. For the 20% worst visibility days in the Kalmiopsis, the
PM2.5 contributions were mostly from natural fire in Oregon.
    For the 20% worst days in the Kalmiopsis Wilderness Area, the
contribution from point sources is relatively small. For the 20% of
worst days in the Kalmiopsis Wilderness Area, the vast majority of
nitrate comes from Oregon mobile sources, with smaller contributions
from Washington and California mobile sources. There is also a
substantial nitrate contribution from Pacific offshore shipping, due
primarily to the close proximity of the Kalmiopsis Wilderness Area to
the Pacific Ocean.
Eastern Oregon Class I Areas
    For the 20% worst days in Strawberry Mountain Wilderness and Eagle
Cap Wilderness Areas, the contribution of sulfates from each
geographical area is relatively low (less than 0.12 micrograms per
cubic meter), with the largest contribution being from point sources
from Canada, Washington, and Oregon. However, the visibility on the 20%
worst days in this area is significantly impacted (greater than 0.20
micrograms per cubic meter) by a combination of point, area, and mobile
NOX sources in Oregon, Washington, and Idaho.
    For the 20% worst visibility days in the Strawberry Mountain
Wilderness and Eagle Cap Wilderness Areas, about 80% of the organic
carbon contribution came from a combination of natural fires and
anthropogenic sources in Oregon. For the 20% worst visibility days
there is also a dominant PM2.5 contribution from windblown
dust, and some fugitive and road dust area and fire sources in Oregon.
The contribution of this mixture of source from Washington is about
half of the Oregon level.
Eastern Oregon/Western Idaho Class I Area
    For the 20% worst days in the Hells Canyon Wilderness Area, the
contribution of sulfates from each geographical area is relatively low
(less than 0.06 micrograms per cubic meter), with the largest
contribution being from point sources from Canada, Idaho, and Oregon.
However, the visibility on the 20% worst days in this area is
significantly impacted (greater than 0.35 micrograms per cubic meter)
by a combination of mobile and area NOX sources in Idaho,
and to a lesser degree, point and mobile sources in Oregon.
    For the 20% worst visibility days in the Hells Canyon Wilderness
Area, the majority of the organic carbon contribution comes from a
combination of Oregon natural and anthropogenic fire sources and to a
lesser extent from anthropogenic and natural fire sources in Oregon.
For the 20% worst visibility days in the Hells Canyon Wilderness Area,
most of the contribution of PM2.5 comes from a combination
of windblown, fugitive and road dust

sources in Idaho and to a lesser degree, the same mix of sources in
Oregon.
    EPA is proposing to find that Oregon has appropriately identified
the primary pollutants impacting its Class I areas. EPA is also
proposing to find that the SIP contains an appropriate analysis of the
impact of these pollutants in nearby Class I areas.

E. Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART)

1. BART-Eligible Sources in Oregon
    The first step of a BART evaluation is to identify all the BART-
eligible sources within the State's boundaries. Table 10.2-1 in the
Oregon Regional Haze SIP submittal presents the list of ten BART-
eligible sources located in Oregon. These sources are: Amalgamated
Sugar (Nyssa), Portland Gas and Electric (PGE) power plant (Boardman),
Boise Paper Solutions (St. Helens), Georgia Pacific Wauna pulp mill
(Clatskanie), PGE Beaver power plant (Clatskanie), Georgia Pacific pulp
mill (Toledo), Pope and Talbot pulp mills (Halsey), SP Newsprint
(Newberg), International Paper pulp mill (Springfield), and Kingsford
charcoal production (Springfield).
2. BART-Subject Sources in Oregon
    The second step of a BART evaluation is to identify those BART-
eligible sources that may reasonably be anticipated to cause or
contribute to any impairment of visibility at any Class I area and are,
therefore, subject to BART. As explained above, EPA has issued
guidelines that provide States with guidance for addressing the BART
requirements. 40 CFR Part 51 Appendix Y--Guidelines for BART
determinations under the regional Haze Rule (BART Guidelines); see also
70 FR 39104 (July 6, 2005). The BART Guidelines describe how States may
consider exempting some BART-eligible sources from further BART review
based on dispersion modeling showing that the source contributes to
impairment below a certain threshold amount. Oregon conducted
dispersion modeling for the BART-eligible sources to determine the
visibility impacts of these sources on Class I areas.
    The BART Guidelines require States to set a contribution threshold
to assess whether the impact of a single source is sufficient to cause
or contribute to visibility impairment at a Class I area. Generally,
States may not establish a contribution threshold that exceeds 0.5 dv
impact. 70 FR at 39161. Oregon established a contribution threshold of
0.5 dv through negotiated rulemaking with industry, FLMs, and the
public. In its SIP submittal, Oregon notes that the 0.5 dv threshold is
also consistent with the threshold used by all other States in the
WRAP. Any source with an impact of greater than 0.5 dv in any Class I
area, including Class I areas in other States, would be subject to a
BART analysis and BART emission limitations.
    Oregon established a contribution threshold of 0.5 dv based on the
following reasons; (1) it equates to the 5% extinction threshold for
new sources under the PSD New Source Review rules, (2) it is consistent
with the threshold selected by other States in the West, (3) it
represents the limit of perceptible change, and (4) there was no clear
rationale or justification for selecting a lower level. EPA finds that
these reasons alone do not provide sufficient basis for concluding that
such a threshold is appropriate for Oregon. Nevertheless, based on the
additional information described below, EPA proposes to approve the
list of subject-to-BART sources in this SIP submittal.
    In the BART Guidelines, EPA recommended that States ``consider the
number of BART sources affecting the Class I areas at issue and the
magnitude of the individual sources' impacts. In general, a larger
number of BART sources causing impacts in a Class I area may warrant a
lower contribution threshold.'' 70 FR 39104, 39161 July 6, 2005. In
developing its regional haze SIP, Oregon modeled the individual impacts
of ten BART-eligible sources on Class I areas within a 300 km radius.
(See Table 10-3.2-1 of the SIP submittal.) EPA's review of modeled
impacts of the BART-eligible sources in Oregon finds there is only one
group of Oregon BART-eligible sources, that collectively impact
visibility at the same Class I area (Mt. Hood Wilderness Area), with a
total impact greater that 1.0 dv (level defined as `causing' visibility
impairment). This group of sources consists of the Georgia Pacific
Wauna pulp mill and PGE Beaver power plant in Clatskanie and Boise
Paper Solutions in St. Helens. Two of these facilities, Georgia Pacific
Wauna and PGE Beaver, have taken Federally Enforceable Permit Limits to
limit their visibility impacts to 0.344 dv and to 0.357 dv,
respectively at the Mt. Hood Wilderness Area. The remaining facility,
Boise Paper Solutions, has a maximum of 0.367 dv impact at the Mt. Hood
Wilderness Area. Since the combined contribution of these three sources
will now be 1.068 dv, which is only slightly above the threshold of
`causing' visibility impairment, EPA is proposing to approve the 0.5 dv
contribution threshold adopted by Oregon in its Regional Haze Plan.
    To determine those sources subject-to-BART, Oregon used the CALPUFF
dispersion model. The dispersion modeling was conducted in accord with
the BART Modeling Protocol7. This Protocol was jointly developed by the
States of Idaho, Washington, Oregon and EPA and has undergone public
review. The Protocol was used by all three States in determining which
BART-eligible sources are subject to BART. See appendix D.4 of the SIP
submission for details of the modeling protocol, its application and
results.
    The following BART-eligible sources, based on CALPUFF modeling of
2003-2005 emissions, demonstrate impacts greater than 0.5 dv in one or
more Class I areas, and were identified as subject to BART:
    1. PGE Beaver Power Plant, Clatskanie
    2. Georgia Pacific, Wauna Facility, Clatskanie
    3. International Paper (formally Weyerhaeuser), Springfield
    4. Amalgamated Sugar, Nyssa
    5. PGE Boardman Power Plant, Boardman
3. Federally Enforceable Permit Limits on Oregon Sources Otherwise
Subject- to-BART
    The following sources elected to be regulated by a Federally
enforceable permit limit to reduce visibility impacts below the 0.5 dv
impact threshold and thus are not subject-to-BART:
a. PGE Beaver Power Plant
    PGE Beaver Power Plant is a 558 megawatt fossil fuel-fired,
electrical-generating plant located in Clatskanie, Oregon. Visibility
modeling for this facility shows an impact on three Class I areas over
the 0.5 dv, with the highest impact of 0.68 dv at Olympic National Park
in Washington. Condition<PHONE_NUMBER> of the Title V permit
(05-2520) for this facility, modified by the Oregon Department
of Environmental Quality (ODEQ) on January 21, 2009, and included in
the SIP submittal, establishes emission limits and the control
technology to achieve these limits, so that the impact of emissions
from this facility remain below a 0.5 dv at Olympic National Park and
all other Class I areas.
    To achieve the emission limits established in the Title V permit,
the facility must use ultra-low sulfur diesel (ULSD) fuel (with no more
than 0.0015% sulfur) in its oil-fired BART eligible units. The source
must use only ``pipe line quality'' natural gas in the gas-fueled PWEU1
unit.
    Compliance with emission limits will be determined by a combination
of continuous emission monitors and other

record keeping and reporting requirements. Based on the fuel use
restrictions established in the permit, the predicted maximum impact
for this facility, based on visibility modeling, will be 0.414 dv at
Mt. Rainier National Park (the most impacted Class I area) (See section
10.3.2, table 10.3.2-1, and Oregon's supplemental submittal, February
1, 2011). EPA proposes to find that in light of the Federally
enforceable permit limit, this source is not subject-to-BART.
b. Georgia Pacific Wauna Mill
    The Georgia Pacific Wauna Mill is a pulp and paper manufacturing
plant located in Clatskanie, Oregon. Modeling conducted for this
facility shows an impact at Olympic National Park of 0.57 dv. This
facility elected to be regulated by an FEPL to limit its emission so
that visibility impacts in any Class I area remain below 0.5 dv. The
section titled ``Emission Unit Specific Limits--Regional Haze
Requirements'' of Title V permit (208850) for this facility,
modified by ODEQ on December 2, 2010, and included in the SIP
submittal, identifies emission limits and the methods for achieving
these limits, so that emissions from this facility will not cause
impairment above 0.5 dv.
    To achieve the emission limits established by the permit, the mill
has reduced its SO2 emissions by (1) permanently reducing
use of fuel oil in the Power Boiler, (2) discontinuing the use of fuel
oil in the Lime Kiln until the Non-Condensable Gas Incinerator (NCGI)
unit is shut down, and (3) limiting pulp production rate to 1,030 tons
per day until the NCGI unit is shut down, at which time production rate
will be limited to 1,350 tons per day. Compliance with emission limits
will be determined by visible emission monitoring and source testing.
    The maximum predicted impact for this facility will be 0.45 dv at
Olympic National Park (See section 10.3.2, table 10.3.2-1, and Oregon's
supplemental submittal, February 1, 2011). EPA proposes to find that in
light of the FEPL, this source is not subject-to-BART.
c. International Paper
    International Paper is a containerboard plant located in
Springfield, Oregon. Modeling conducted for this facility shows an
impact in nine Class I areas over the 0.5 dv. The highest impact of
1.45 dv occurs at the Three Sisters Wilderness Area. Condition 210 of
Title V permit (208850) for this facility, modified by Lane
Regional Air Protection Agency on April 7, 2009, and included in the
SIP submittal, identifies emission limits and the methods for achieving
these limits, so that the impact of emissions from this facility remain
below a 0.5 dv impact.
    To achieve the emission limits established by the permit, the plant
has reduced its emissions of SO2, NOX, and PM by
accepting limits on fuel usage and operation, and meeting a combined
SO2 and NOX daily emission limit based on a plant
fuel use specific formula. The permit requires this facility to include
the package boiler (EU-150B) emissions when demonstrating compliance
with condition 210 of the permit until the source submits a notice of
completion of No. 4 recovery boiler mud and steam drum replacement.
Compliance with emission limits will be determined by testing the
sulfur concentrations in the natural gas and fuel oil used by this
facility at specified frequencies, and using the appropriate emission
factors for these fuels to calculate estimate daily SO2 and
NOX emissions. With the Federally enforceable permit limit,
the maximum predicted impact for this facility will be 0.44 dv at Three
Sisters Wilderness Area (See section 10.3.2, table 10.3.2-1, and
Oregon's supplemental submittal, February 1, 2011).
    EPA proposes to find that in light of the Federally enforceable
permit limit this source is not subject-to-BART.
d. Amalgamated Sugar Plant
    Amalgamated Sugar Plant is a sugar beet processing plant located in
Nyssa, in eastern Oregon, near the Idaho border. This plant is
currently shutdown and has no identified date to resume operations.
However, since its air quality permit is still valid, BART modeling was
conducted for the plant and an impact of 0.514 dv was identified at the
Eagle Cap Wilderness Area. In the event this source resumes operation
in the future, Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (ODEQ) will
require that this facility be subject to a Federally enforceable permit
limit in its Title V permit, or conduct a BART analysis and install
BART prior to resuming operation. The Federally enforceable permit
limit will consist of an emission limit on the Foster-Wheeler boiler at
this facility, which will ensure visibility impact remains under the
0.5 dv threshold. See OAR<PHONE_NUMBER>. EPA proposes to find that in
light of these provisions, this source is not currently subject- to-
BART.
4. BART for PGE Boardman
    The PGE power plant near Boardman, Oregon, (PGE Boardman) is a 584
MW coal-fired electric utility and is BART-eligible because it is was
constructed between 1962 and 1977, is a fossil-fuel fired steam
electric generating plant of more than 250 million British thermal
units (mm/Btu) per hour heat input, and has potential emissions greater
than 250 tons per year of sulfur dioxide (SO2), nitrogen
oxides (NOX), and particulate matter (PM). PGE Boardman
commenced construction in 1975 and began operation in 1980. The PGE
Boardman boiler is a Foster Wheeler dry bottom, opposing-wall fired
design, controlled with first generation low NOX burners and
overfire air. An electrostatic participator currently controls PM
emissions.
    In July 2009, ODEQ conducted a BART analysis and determined that
BART for PGE Boardman, was a combination of new low-NOX
burners/modified overfire air (NLNB/MOFA) for NOX and Semi-
Dry Flue Gas Desulfurization (SDFGD) for SO2, with a pulse
jet fabric filter for PM. ODEQ also determined that Selective Catalytic
Reduction (SCR) would increase control efficiency for NOX
emissions and was reasonable to assure further reasonable progress.
Based on the assumption that the facility would operate for at least 30
years (until 2040), this BART analysis determined these controls would
be cost effective. Oregon included this BART determination in the
Regional Haze Plan it submitted to EPA in July 2009. See Oregon
Regional Haze Plan dated July 16, 2009, and OAR<PHONE_NUMBER> through
OAR<PHONE_NUMBER>, dated June 30, 2009. On September 11, 2009, EPA
informed ODEQ that this SIP submission was complete,
    In a letter from PGE to ODEQ dated October 22, 2010, PGE requested
that ODEQ reopen the Regional Haze BART rulemaking to consider an
alternative BART approach for PGE Boardman. This alternative approach
would allow PGE Boardman to commit to cease burning coal by December
31, 2020, and in the interim operate with less expensive control
technology. This alternative shortens the expected useful life of the
coal-burning Foster Wheeler boiler by 20 years compared to the life
expectancy relied on in the original BART determination. This
alternative would also allow the boiler to be restarted using an
alternative fuel at a future date. (A re-start of the boiler with an
alternate fuel source would then require PGE to comply with all
relevant requirements, including as applicable the requirement to apply
for a Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) construction permit
which will require an analysis and permitted emission limits that
represent Best Available Control Technology (BACT) before construction
could commence.)

Based on PGE's request, ODEQ performed an additional BART analysis for
PGE Boardman assuming a shorter life expectancy. ODEQ evaluated
visibility improvements in Class I areas of all technically feasible
emission control technologies and determined the cost effectiveness of
each technology assuming operation until 2020. See BART Guidelines
Section IV. D. 4.(k) (explaining how to take into account the project's
remaining useful life when calculating control costs).
    ODEQ's BART analysis for all technically feasible control
technologies for the Foster-Wheeler boiler is described in Appendices
D-6 and D-7 of the revised Oregon Regional Haze SIP submitted December
2010. ODEQ determined that the technically feasible controls for
NOX were the following: new low-NOX burners with
modified overfire air (NLNB/MOFA); selective non-catalytic reduction
(SNCR) with NLNB/MOFA; and selective catalytic reduction (SCR). ODEQ
determined that the technically feasible controls for SO2
for were the following: reduced-sulfur coal restriction (RSCR); Direct
Sorbent Injection (DSI); semi-dry flue gas desulfurization (SDFGD); and
wet flue gas desulfurization (WFGD). The technically feasible controls
evaluated for PM emission control were the following: pulsed jet fabric
filter (PJFF) and electrostatic precipitation (ESP). An ESP is already
installed and operating at PGE Boardman.
    After identifying all technically feasible technologies to control
the various pollutants ODEQ determined the emission limits achievable
by each technology. The following results (for NOX,
SO2 and PM) are shown in the Control Effectiveness table in
Appendix D-7 of the SIP submittal. The emission limits for
NOX would be:
     NLNB/MOFA--0.23 lb/mmBtu
     SNCR--0.19 lb/mmBtu
     SCR--0.07 lb/mmBtu
    The emission limits for SO2 would be:
     RSCR--0.6 lb/mmBtu
     DSI--0.4 lb/mmBtu
     SDFGD--0.12 lb/mmBtu
     WFGD--0.09 lb/mmBtu
    The emission limits for PM would be:
     PJFF--0.012 lb/mmBtu
     ESP--0.017 lb/mmBtu
    ODEQ next evaluated the cost effectiveness, the energy impacts, and
non-air quality environmental impacts of each technically feasible
control. The cost effectiveness of NOX control alternatives
were:
     NLNB/MOFA--$1,263/ton
     NLNB/MOFA/SNCR--$1,816/ton
     NLNB/MOFA/SCR--$8,337/ton
    The cost effectiveness of SO2 control alternatives were:
     DSI-1 (referred to as the initial phase of DSI
operation)--$2,458/ton
     SDFGD--$5,535/ton (including the cost of installing a
PJFF)
     WFGD--$7,631/ton
    Included in the cost effectiveness values presented above are the
direct energy and non-air costs. The direct energy impacts for each
control technology were based on the auxiliary power consumption of the
control technology and the additional draft system power consumption
necessary to overcome the control technology resistance in the flue gas
flow path. Indirect energy impacts, such as the energy to produce raw
materials used for the control technology were not included in the cost
estimates.
    ODEQ identified and considered the following potential non-air
quality concerns for each technology: NLNB/MOFA--increased carbon
monoxide air emissions and boiler tube slagging; SNCR--ammonia option
has potential safety issues, urea option produces CO2,
ammonia slip, and ammonia bisulfate formation (air preheater fouling);
SCR--ammonia handling safety, SO2 to SO3
conversion and air preheater corrosion, ammonium bisulfate formation
(air preheater fouling), soot blowing to manage ash deposition in the
catalyst, reliability of catalyst in high temperature application, and
ammonia slip; DSI--potential interference with mercury control system,
creation of hazardous waste, requirement for increased maintenance of
the ducts and ESP, and increase in particulate emissions; SDFGD--
fugitive emissions from raw material and byproduct handling; WFGD--
fugitive emissions from raw material and byproduct handling, persistent
water plume from stack, material corrosion, dewatering, and addition of
PJFF for mercury control. ODEQ concluded that in spite of the potential
concerns identified, each of these control technologies are proven in
use at other coal-fired boilers and that these concerns could be
adequately addressed with a well-designed system. The only exception is
SNCR in combination with DSI, which may result in additional PM
emissions due to ammonia slip. ODEQ then determined the visibility
improvements that could be achieved over current conditions with each
combination of technically feasible emission control technologies in
the Mt. Hood Wilderness Area, the Class I area most impacted by PGE
Boardman. (See the Control Effectiveness table in Appendix D-7 of the
SIP submittal.) The visibility improvements were:
     NLNB/MOFA--1.44 dv
     NLNB/MOFA/SNCR--1.62 dv
     NLNB/MOFA/SCR--2.17 dv
     RSCR--0.43 dv
     DSI-1--0.84 dv
     SDFGD--1.24 dv
     WFGD--1.19 dv
     PJFF--<0.1 dv
    As explained in the 2010 revised BART analysis, and after full
public notice and comment, ODEQ determined BART emission limits
appropriate for the PGE Boardman facility based on it ceasing to burn
coal by December 31, 2020. The specific emission limits and associated
control technologies are explained below.
    Specifically ODEQ determined that BART for NOX is 0.23
lbs/mmBtu based on NLNB/MOFA. ODEQ found that the technology is cost
effective and provides significant visibility improvement (>1.0 dv in
Mt. Hood wilderness area), as well as significant improvement in 11
other Class I areas. Although the technology option of NLNB/MOFA plus
selective non-catalytic reduction (SNCR) was cost effective ($1,816/
ton), ODEQ rejected this technology option because adding SNCR only
provided an additional 0.18 dv of visibility improvement over NLNB/MOFA
at the Mt. Hood Wilderness Area, and because of concerns about excess
ammonia emissions (commonly referred to as ammonia slip) which may
result in increased rates of secondary particulate matter in the form
of ammonium sulfate. As shown in the Control Effectiveness table in
Appendix D-7, the NOX emission reduction attributed to SNCR
was only 17% better than that achieved with NLNB/MOFA alone.
    ODEQ determined BART for SO2 is 0.40 lbs/mmBtu based on
initial operational efficiency of DSI (DSI-1). This determination was
made because DSI-1 is cost effective at $3,370/ton, will provide
significant visibility improvement (> 0.5dv) in the Mt. Hood Wilderness
Area, and provide significant improvement in 11 other Class I areas.
The cost effectiveness value that ODEQ calculated for SDFGD was $5,535/
ton. The incremental cost effectiveness of SDFGD compared to DSI-1 is
about $7,200/ton. ODEQ stated that SDFGD is not considered to be BART
because it is not cost effective when considering a useful life
expectancy of 2020.
    ODEQ determined BART for PM is 0.40 lb/mmBtu, which is the current
PM emission limit for PGE Boardman with the existing ESP system. ODEQ's
analysis concluded that the alternative PM control technology, PJFF,
would only reduce PM emissions by 122 ton/year compared to 2007 actual
PM emissions, and would not be cost effective at $186,102/ton (see

Addendum to DEQ BART Report for the Boardman Power Plant, dated
November 11, 2010).
    ODEQ also determined that further operational refinements to the
DSI system or the use of improved sorbent (called DSI-2) could be
achieved by 2018, resulting in further reductions in SO2
emissions at that time. Therefore, ODEQ identified a goal of 0.30 lbs/
mmBtu for SO2 emissions to achieve further reasonable
progress by July 1, 2018. This goal would be achieved with operational
refinements to the DSI system or the use of an improved sorbent that
may be available in the future.
    EPA reviewed the BART determination for PGE Boardman and found that
ODEQ appropriately followed the required steps for determining BART as
described in the BART Guidelines Section IV. D. These steps are: (1)
Identify all available retrofit control technologies; (2) eliminate
technically infeasible options; (3) evaluate control effectiveness of
remaining control technologies; (4) evaluate impacts and document
results; and (5) evaluate visibility impacts. EPA proposes to find that
the methods used by ODEQ for determining cost, cost effectiveness,
energy and non air quality impacts, and visibility improvement of BART
controls for the Foster Wheeler boiler at the PGE Boardman facility for
a 2020 plant lifetime are consistent with the RHR and EPA guidance.
ODEQ has also used an acceptable methodology for determining the
impacts of remaining useful facility life on the cost and cost
effectiveness of BART controls for the 2020 plant lifetime. The
emission limits, and schedules for meeting them, are identified in the
Oregon Regional Haze Rules, OAR<PHONE_NUMBER>. (State effective December
9, 2010). Therefore, EPA proposes to approve Oregon's BART
determination for PGE Boardman.

IV. EPA's Analysis of Oregon's Regional Haze Rules

    Oregon included in its Regional Haze SIP submittal revisions to the
Oregon Regional Haze Rules (OAR<PHONE_NUMBER> through<PHONE_NUMBER>),
adopted by the State on December 9, 2010. These rules, among other
things, establish emission limits on certain sources that significantly
contribute to visibility impairment in Oregon Class I areas.
Additionally, these rules establish the BART emission limits analyzed
and described in section II.D.4. above for the PGE Boardman facility.
As explained in more detail below, the rules related to PGE Boardman
establish a scenario whereby PGE would cease burning coal in the
Boardman Foster Wheeler boiler no later than 2020 and perhaps as early
as 2014. Additionally, pursuant to OAR<PHONE_NUMBER>, upon EPA's
approval of the rules, the provisions containing alternative BART
emission limits based on the facility continuing to burn coal until at
least 2040 would be repealed as a matter of law. See Oregon Regional
Haze SIP Submittal Attachment 1.1 pgs 5-6. http://www.deq.state.or.us/aq/pge.htm (ODEQ Web page describing the new regulations for PGE
Boardman).

OAR<PHONE_NUMBER>

    This rule explains that the purpose of OAR<PHONE_NUMBER> through 340
223-0080 is to establish requirements for certain sources emitting air
pollutants that reduce visibility and contribute to regional haze in
Class I areas for the purpose of implementing Best Available Retrofit
Technology requirements and other requirements associated with the
Federal Regional Haze Rules in 40 CFR 51.308.

OAR<PHONE_NUMBER>

    This rule includes the following definitions, ``BART-eligible
source'', ``Beat Available Retrofit Technology (BART)'', ``Deciview'',
and ``Subject to BART''. These definitions are consistent with their
definitions in the Federal RHR. Two additional definitions, ``Dry
sorbent injection pollution control system'' and ``Ultra-low sulfur
coal'' are consistent with industry practices.

OAR<PHONE_NUMBER>

    This rule identifies BART emission limits, and other requirements
pursuant to the Federal regional haze rule, and the schedule for
meeting these limits for the Foster Wheeler boiler at the PGE Boardman
facility. This rule also includes the requirement that the Foster
Wheeler boiler facility permanently cease burning coal by no later than
December 31, 2020. OAR<PHONE_NUMBER>(1)(e). In this rule, the specific
emission limits and schedule for these limits are:
    1. NOX--Between July 1, 2011 and December 31, 2020,
NOX emissions must not exceed 0.23 lbs/mmBtu (pounds per
million British thermal units) on a 30-day rolling average. However, if
PGE demonstrates to ODEQ by December 31, 2011, that the 0.23 lbs/mmBtu
cannot be achieved with combustion controls, ODEQ may, by order, grant
an extension to July 1, 2013.
    2. SO2--Between July 1, 2014 and June 30, 2018,
SO2 emissions must not exceed 0.4 lbs/mmBtu and between July
1, 2018 and December 31, 2020, SO2 emissions must not exceed
0.30 lb/mmBtu. However, if PGE cannot achieve 0.4 lbs/mmBtu by July 1,
2014, based on the reduction of SO2 emissions to the maximum
extent feasible through the use of dry sorbent injection, the limits
would be the lowest achievable with DSI, but no higher than 0.55 lbs/
mmBtu by July 1, 2014. The SO2 emission limit is lowered to
0.30 lb/mmBtu by July 1, 2018. This limit is more stringent than the
0.40 lb/mmBtu BART limit and was adopted to achieve further reasonable
progress in Class I areas. ODEQ believes that this limit could be met
by further refinements to the DSI system (called ``DSI-2''), or DSI
refinements in combination with ultra-low sulfur coal.
    3. PM--Between July 1, 2014 and December 31, 2020, PM emissions
must not exceed 0.040lb/mmBtu heat input.
    OAR<PHONE_NUMBER> also explains that notwithstanding the definition
of netting basis in OAR<PHONE_NUMBER>, and the process for reducing
plant site emission limits in OAR<PHONE_NUMBER>, the netting basis and
the plant site emission limitations (PSELs) for the Foster Wheeler
boiler are reduced to zero upon the date on which the boiler
permanently ceases burning coal. Prior to that date the netting basis
and PSELs for the boiler apply only to physical changes or changes in
the method of operation of the source for the purposes of complying
with the emission limits applicable to the boiler.

OAR<PHONE_NUMBER>

    This rule explains that a BART-eligible source, which would be
subject-to-BART based on visibility modeling, may accept a Federally
enforceable permit limit to reduce the source's emissions and prevent
the source from being subject-to-BART. It also explains that any source
that accepts a Federal enforceable permit limit and subsequently
proposes to terminate this limit, such that an increase in emissions
would make the source subject-to-BART, must submit a BART analysis to
ODEQ and install BART as determined by ODEQ prior to terminating the
Federally enforceable permit limits. This rule also explains that the
Foster Wheeler boiler at the Amalgamated Sugar Company in Nyssa,
Oregon, is currently not operating, and that prior to resuming
operation the owner or operator must either (1) submit a BART analysis
and install BART as determined by ODEQ, or (2) obtain and comply with a
Federally enforceable permit limit to ensure that the source's
emissions will not cause the source to be subject-to-BART.

OAR<PHONE_NUMBER>

    OAR<PHONE_NUMBER>(1) provides that the owner and operator of the
Foster Wheeler boiler at the PGE Boardman

facility may elect to comply with OAR<PHONE_NUMBER> and OAR 340-223-
0070, or with OAR<PHONE_NUMBER>, in lieu of OAR<PHONE_NUMBER>. OAR 340-
223-0060 and 0070 provide emission limits based on coal operation until
2040, and OAR<PHONE_NUMBER> provides emission limits based on PGE
Boardman permanently ceasing to burn coal within five years of EPA's
approval of OAR chapter 340, division 223. Any of these alternatives
are available only if the owner or operator provides written
notification to the ODEQ Director by July 1, 2014 of which alternative
it has chosen to comply with. Additionally, as provided in OAR 340-223-
0050(4), if EPA approves a SIP revision incorporating OAR<PHONE_NUMBER>
(discussed above concerning BART requirements based on PGE permanently
ceasing to burn coal in the Foster Wheeler boiler by December 31, 2020)
compliance with OAR<PHONE_NUMBER> and 0070 is no longer an alternative.
Accordingly, EPA's approval of OAR<PHONE_NUMBER>, as proposed in this
action, would eliminate the alternative BART requirements allowed under
OAR<PHONE_NUMBER> and<PHONE_NUMBER>.

OAR<PHONE_NUMBER> and OAR<PHONE_NUMBER>

    OAR<PHONE_NUMBER> identifies the SO2, NOX, and
PM BART emission limits and the schedules for meeting these limits
based upon coal operation of the Foster Wheeler boiler at the PGE
Boardman facility until 2040. OAR<PHONE_NUMBER> identifies additional
NOX emission limits that must be met by July 1, 2017 to
achieve further reasonable progress for the PGE Boardman facility based
on operation of the Foster Wheeler boiler until 2040. In this action,
EPA is proposing to approve a SIP revision incorporating OAR 340-223-
0030. Thus, if or when this proposal is finalized, as provided in OAR
340-223-0050 and explained above, OAR<PHONE_NUMBER> and -0070 would be
repealed as a matter of law and compliance with them would no longer be
an alternative.

OAR 340-0080

    This rule, which is an alternative to OAR<PHONE_NUMBER>, sets
NOX emission limits and schedules for meeting these limits
for the Foster Wheeler boiler at the PGE Boardman facility. As
explained above, pursuant to OAR<PHONE_NUMBER>(2), this alternative is
based on the boiler permanently ceasing to burn coal no later than five
years after EPA's approval of the Oregon Regional Haze Plan that
incorporates OAR chapter 340, division 223. As in described above for
OAR-340-223-0030, this provision also describes the process for
establishing the netting basis if this alternative is chosen.
    In summary, EPA is proposing to find that Oregon's use of Federal
enforceable permit limits to reduce emissions of four sources below the
0.5 dv visibility impact contribution threshold, is an acceptable means
of exempting a source from being subject-to-BART. Additionally, based
on the analysis described in section III.E. 4. above, EPA proposes to
find that the rules relating to PGE Boardman are approvable. EPA
proposes to approve OAR<PHONE_NUMBER> through<PHONE_NUMBER>.

V. EPA's Analysis of Whether the Oregon Regional Haze SIP Submittal
Meets Interstate Transport Requirements

    Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) of the Act requires SIP revisions to
``contain ``adequate provisions * * * prohibiting * * * any source or
other types of emission activity within the State from emitting any air
pollutant in amounts which will * * * interfere with measures required
to be included in the applicable implementation plan for any other
State * * * to protect visibility.'' EPA is proposing to find that the
Oregon SIP submittal of December 2010, and the supplemental SIP
submittal dated February 1, 2011, to address regional haze contain
adequate provisions to meet these ``good neighbor'' provisions of
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) with respect to visibility.
    As an initial matter, EPA notes that section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II)
does not explicitly specify how EPA should ascertain whether a State's
SIP contains adequate provisions to prevent emissions from sources in
that State from interfering with measures required in another State to
protect visibility. Thus, the statute is ambiguous on its face, and EPA
must interpret that provision.
    Our 2006 Guidance recommended that a State could meet the
visibility prong of the transport requirements for section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) by submission of the regional haze SIP, due in
December 2007. EPA's reasoning was that the development of the regional
haze SIPs was intended to occur in a collaborative environment among
the States, and that through this process States would coordinate on
emissions controls to protect visibility on an interstate basis. In
fact, in developing their respective reasonable progress goals, WRAP
States consulted with each other through the WRAP's work groups. As a
result of this process, the common understanding was that each State
would take action to achieve the emissions reductions relied upon by
other States in their reasonable progress demonstrations under the RHR.
This interpretation is consistent with the requirement in the regional
haze rule that a State participating in a regional planning process
must include ``all measures needed to achieve its apportionment of
emission reduction obligations agreed upon through that process.'' 40
CFR 51.308(d)(3)(ii).
    We believe that with approval of the portions of the Oregon SIP
that we are proposing to take action on today, Oregon's SIP will also
contain adequate provisions to prevent interstate transport that would
interfere with the measures required in other States to protect
visibility. Chapter 13 of the Oregon SIP submittal explains the
consultation process followed by Oregon and its neighboring States to
meet the requirements in the regional haze rule to address the
interstate transport of visibility impairing pollutants, and the
outcome of that process. Section 13.2.3 indicates that Oregon and
neighboring States agreed that ``no major contributions were identified
that supported developing new interstate strategies, mitigation
measures, or emissions reductions obligations,'' and that each State
could achieve its share of emission reductions through the
implementation of BART and other existing measures in State regional
haze plans. Additionally, when ODEQ subsequently revised its BART
determination for PGE Boardman in 2010, it specifically consulted with
Idaho and Washington, the two States with Class I areas identified as
impacted by the PGE Boardman plant. These States confirmed that they
support the revisions and indicated that they did not anticipate the
difference in emissions between the 2009 BART determination for
Boardman and the 2010 BART determination to have any material adverse
effect on the State's reasonable progress goals for 2018. See Oregon
Supplemental SIP Submittal. Oregon also agreed that future consultation
would address any new strategies or measures needed. The measures
addressing BART in the Oregon SIP submittal accordingly would appear to
be adequate to prevent emissions from sources in Oregon from
interfering with the measures required to be in the regional haze SIPs
of its neighbors.
    This conclusion is consistent with the analysis conducted by the
WRAP, an analysis that provides an appropriate means for further
evaluating whether emissions from sources in a State are interfering
with the visibility programs of other States, as contemplated in

section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II). As described below, EPA's evaluation shows
that the BART measures of the Regional Haze SIP submittal, that we are
proposing to approve today, are generally consistent with the emissions
reductions assumptions of the WRAP modeling from Oregon sources.
Accordingly, EPA is proposing to approve Oregon's SIP as ensuring that
emissions from Oregon do not interfere with the reasonable progress
goals of other States.
    In developing their visibility projections using photochemical grid
modeling, the WRAP States assumed a certain level of emissions from
sources within Oregon. The visibility projection modeling was in turn
used by the States to establish their own reasonable progress goals. We
have reviewed the WRAP photochemical modeling emissions projections
used in the demonstration of reasonable progress towards natural
visibility conditions and compared them to the emissions limits that
will result from the imposition of BART on sources in Oregon. We have
concluded that with the emissions reductions achieved by these
measures, the emissions from Oregon sources in the projected inventory
for 2018 (which included both reductions and increases) will be
approximately equal to that assumed in the WRAP analysis.
    As a result of the foregoing determination, EPA is proposing to
find that the Oregon Regional Haze SIP submission contains the emission
reductions needed to achieve Oregon's share of emission reductions
agreed upon through the regional planning process. As reflected in its
Regional Haze SIP submittal, Oregon committed to achieve these emission
reductions to address impacts on visibility on Class I areas in
surrounding States. The portions of the Oregon Regional Haze SIP that
we are proposing to approve ensure that emissions from Oregon will not
interfere with the reasonable progress goals for neighboring States'
Class I areas. EPA is accordingly proposing to find that these emission
reductions also meet the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) of
the Act with respect to the visibility prong for the 1997 8-hour ozone
and 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS.

VI. What action is EPA proposing?

    EPA is proposing to approve portions of the Oregon Regional Haze
plan, submitted on December 20, 2010, and as supplemented on February
1, 2011, as meeting the requirements set forth in section 169A of the
Act and in 40 CFR 51.308(e) regarding BART. EPA is also proposing to
approve the Oregon submittal as meeting the requirements of
51.308(d)(2) and (4)(v) regarding the calculation of baseline and
natural conditions for all 12 Class I areas in Oregon, 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. In addition, EPA is proposing to find
that the BART measures in the Oregon Regional Haze plan meet the
requirements of section 110(a)(D)(ii)(II) of the CAA with respect to
the 1997 8-hour ozone and 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS. Finally, EPA is
proposing to approve OAR<PHONE_NUMBER> through<PHONE_NUMBER> [Regional
Haze Rules].

VII. Oregon Notice Provision

    Oregon Revised Statute 468.126, prohibits ODEQ from imposing a
penalty for violation of an air, water, or solid waste permit unless
the source has been provided five days' advanced written notice of the
violation and has not come into compliance or submitted a compliance
schedule within that five-day period. By its terms, the statute does
not apply to Oregon's Title V program or to any program if application
of the notice provision would disqualify the program from Federal
delegation. Oregon has previously confirmed that, because application
of the notice provision would preclude EPA approval of the Oregon SIP,
no advance notice is required for violation of SIP requirements.
    EPA is taking no action on chapter 340, division 200, section 0040,
State of Oregon Clean Air Act Implementation Plan, because this section
simply describes the State's procedures for adopting its SIP and
incorporates by reference all of the revisions adopted by the
Environmental Quality Council for approval into the Oregon SIP (as a
matter of State law).

VIII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a
SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and
applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a).
Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve State
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act.
Accordingly, this proposed action merely approves State law as meeting
Federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond
those imposed by State law. For that reason, this proposed action:
     Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     Does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the Clean Air Act; and
     Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    In addition, this rule does not have Tribal implications as
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000),
because the SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in
the State, and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct
costs on Tribal governments or preempt Tribal law.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

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

    Dated: February 28, 2011.
Dennis McLerran,
Regional Administrator, Region 10.
[FR Doc. 2011-5198 Filed 3-7-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P