[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 100 (Wednesday, May 23, 2012)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 30454-30467]
[FR Doc No: 2012-12490]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

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

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

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

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

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

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

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Keith Rose at telephone number (206)
553-1949<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
II. Requirements for the Regional Haze SIPs
    A. The CAA and the Regional Haze Rule
    B. Determination of Baseline, Natural, and Current Visibility
Conditions
    C. Consultation With States and Federal Land Managers
    D. Best Available Retrofit Technology
    E. Determination of Reasonable Progress Goals
    F. Long Term Strategy
    G. Coordinating Regional Haze and Reasonably Attributable
Visibility Impairment
    H. Monitoring Strategy and Other Implementation Plan
Requirements
III. EPA's Analysis of the Oregon Regional Haze SIP
    A. Affected Class I Areas
    B. Baseline and Natural Conditions
    C. Oregon Emissions Inventory
    D. Sources of Visibility Impairment in Oregon Class I Areas
    E. Best Available Retrofit Technology
    F. Reasonable Progress Goals
    1. Determination of Reasonable Progress Goals
    2. Demonstration of Reasonable Progress
    3. EPA's Determination Whether the SIP Meets 40 CFR 51.308(d)(1)
    G. Long Term Strategy
    1. Ongoing Air Pollution Control Programs
    a. Prevention of Significant Deterioration/New Source Review
Rules
    b. Reasonably Attributable Visibility Impairment BART
    c. Oregon's Phase I Visibility Protection Program
    d. Implementation of State and Federal Mobile Source Regulations
    e. On-Going Implementation of Programs to meet PM10
NAAQS
    2. Measures to Mitigate the Impacts of Construction Activities
    3. Emission Limitations and Schedules of Compliance
    4. Source Retirement and Replacement Schedules
    5. Smoke Management Techniques for Agricultural and Forestry
Burning
    6. Enforceability of Emission Limitations and Control Measures
    H. Monitoring Strategy and Other Implementation Plan
Requirements
    I. Consultation With States and Federal Land Managers

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

I. Background for EPA's Proposed Action

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

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

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

A. Definition of Regional Haze

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

B. Regional Haze Rules and Regulations

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

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

C. Roles of Agencies in Addressing Regional Haze

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

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

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

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

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

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

II. Requirements for Regional Haze SIPs

A. The CAA and the Regional Haze Rule

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

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

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

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

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

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

C. Consultation With States and Federal Land Managers

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

D. Best Available Retrofit Technology

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

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

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

E. Determination of Reasonable Progress Goals

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

F. Long Term Strategy

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

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

G. Coordinating Regional Haze and Reasonably Attributable Visibility
Impairment

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

H. Monitoring Strategy and Other Implementation Plan Requirements

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

III. EPA's Analysis of Oregon Regional Haze SIP

A. Affected Class I Areas

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

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

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

B. Baseline and Natural Conditions

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

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

C. Oregon Emission Inventory

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

D. Sources of Visibility Impairment in Oregon Class I Areas

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

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

E. Best Available Retrofit Technology

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

F. Reasonable Progress Goals

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

G. Long Term Strategy

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

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

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

H. Monitoring Strategy and Other Implementation Plan Requirements

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

I. Consultation With States and Federal Land Managers

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

J. Periodic SIP Revisions and Five-Year Progress Reports

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

IV. What action is EPA proposing?

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

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

V. Oregon Notice Provision

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

VI. Scope of Action

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

VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

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

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

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

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