Air Plan Approval; Oregon; Regional Haze Progress Report, 11927-11933 [2018-04931]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 53 / Monday, March 19, 2018 / Proposed Rules
(g) Fees pending a waiver request.
Requests for a waiver or reduction of
fees should be made when the request
is first submitted to the agency and
should address the criteria referenced in
this section. A requester may submit a
fee waiver request at a later time so long
as the underlying record request is
pending or on administrative appeal.
When a requester who has committed to
pay fees subsequently asks for a waiver
of those fees and that waiver is denied,
the requester must pay any costs
incurred up to the date the fee waiver
request was received.
(h) Types of requesters. There are four
categories of FOIA requesters:
Commercial use requesters, educational
and non-commercial scientific
institutional requesters; representatives
of the news media; and all other
requesters. The following specific levels
of fees are prescribed for each of these
categories:
(1) Commercial requesters shall be
charged the full direct costs of searching
for, reviewing, and duplicating
requested records;
(2) Educational and non-commercial
scientific institution requesters shall be
charged for document duplication only
and the first one-hundred (100) pages of
paper copies shall be provided without
charge;
(3) Representative of the news media
requesters shall be charged for
document duplication costs only, except
that the first one-hundred (100) pages of
paper copies shall be provided without
charge; and
(4) All other requesters who do not
fall into any of the categories in
paragraphs (h)(1) through (3) of this
section shall be charged fees which
recover the full reasonable direct costs
incurred for searching for and
reproducing records if that total costs
exceeds $25.00, except that the first onehundred (100) pages of duplication and
the first two hours of manual search
time shall not be charged.
(i) Charges for unsuccessful searches.
If the requester has been notified of the
estimated cost of the search time and
has been advised specifically that the
requested records may not exist or may
be withheld as exempt, fees may be
charged.
(j) Charges for other services.
Although MCC is not required to
provide special services, if it chooses to
do so as a matter of administrative
discretion, the direct costs of providing
the service shall be charged. Examples
of such services include certifying that
records are true copies, providing
multiple copies of the same document,
or sending records by means other than
first class mail.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:06 Mar 16, 2018
Jkt 244001
(k) Charging interest. MCC may charge
interest on any unpaid bill starting on
the 31st day following the date of billing
the requester. Interest charges shall be
assessed at the rate provided in 31
U.S.C. 3717 and will accrue from the
billing date until payment is received.
MCC shall follow the provisions of the
Debt Collection Act of 1982, as
amended, and its administrative
procedures, including the use consumer
reporting agencies, collection agencies,
and offset.
(l) Aggregating requests. The requester
or a group of requesters may not submit
multiple requests at the same time, each
seeking portions of a document or
documents solely in order to avoid
payment of fees. When the FOIA
Program Officer reasonably believes that
a requester is attempting to divide a
request into a series of requests to evade
an assessment of fees, the FOIA Program
Officer may aggregate such requests and
charge accordingly. MCC may presume
that multiple requests of this type made
within a thirty (30) calendar day period
have been made in order to avoid fees.
For requests separated by a longer
period, MCC will aggregate them only
where there is a reasonable basis for
determining that aggregation is
warranted in view of all the
circumstances involved. Multiple
requests involving unrelated matters
cannot be aggregated.
(m) Advance payment of fees. (1)
MCC may require an advanced payment
of fees if the requestor previously failed
to pay fees or if the FOIA Program
Officer determines the total fee will
exceed $250.00. When payment is
required in advance of the processing of
a request, the time limits prescribed in
§ 1304.5 shall not be deemed to begin
until the requester has paid the assessed
fees.
(2) In cases in which MCC requires
advance payment, the request will not
be considered received and further work
will not be completed until the required
payment is received. If the requester
does not pay the advance payment
within thirty (30) calendar days after the
date of the fee determination, the
request will be closed. Where it is
anticipated that the cost of providing
the requested record will exceed $25.00
but falls below $250.00 after the free
duplication and search time has been
calculated, MCC may, in its discretion
may require either an advance deposit
of the entire estimated charges or
written confirmation of the requester’s
willingness to pay such charges.
(3) Where the requester has
previously failed to pay a properly
charged FOIA fee within thirty (30)
calendar days of the billing date, MCC
PO 00000
Frm 00025
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
11927
may require the requester to pay the full
amount due plus any applicable interest
on that prior request, and/or require that
the requester make an advance payment
of the full amount of the anticipated fee
before MCC begins a new request or
continues to process a pending request
or any pending appeal. If MCC has a
reasonable basis to believe that a
requester has misrepresented the
requester’s identity in order to avoid
paying outstanding fees, MCC may
require that the requester provide proof
of identity.
§ 1304.12
Other rights and services.
Nothing in this part shall be
construed to entitle any person a right
to any service or to the disclosure of any
record to which such person is not
entitled under the FOIA.
Subpart B [Reserved]
Dated: March 7, 2018.
Tamiko N.W. Watkins,
Chief FOIA Officer, Millennium Challenge
Corporation.
[FR Doc. 2018–04993 Filed 3–16–18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9211–03–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA–R10–OAR–2017–0482; FRL–9975–22–
Region 10]
Air Plan Approval; Oregon; Regional
Haze Progress Report
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
AGENCY:
The Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve a
revision to the Oregon Regional Haze
State Implementation Plan (SIP),
submitted by the State of Oregon on July
18, 2017. Oregon submitted its Regional
Haze Progress Report (‘‘progress report’’
or ‘‘report’’) and a negative declaration
stating that further revision of the
existing regional haze SIP is not needed
at this time. Oregon submitted both the
progress report and the negative
declaration in the form of
implementation plan revisions as
required by federal regulations. The
progress report addresses the federal
Regional Haze Rule (RHR) requirements
under the Clean Air Act (CAA) to
submit a report describing progress in
achieving reasonable progress goals
(RPGs) established for regional haze and
a determination of the adequacy of the
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\19MRP1.SGM
19MRP1
11928
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 53 / Monday, March 19, 2018 / Proposed Rules
state’s existing plan addressing regional
haze.
DATES: Comments must be received on
or before April 18, 2018.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments,
identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R10–
OAR–2017–0482 at https://
www.regulations.gov. Follow the online
instructions for submitting comments.
Once submitted, comments cannot be
edited or removed from Regulations.gov.
The EPA may publish any comment
received to its public docket. Do not
submit electronically any information
you consider to be Confidential
Business Information (CBI) or other
information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Multimedia
submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be
accompanied by a written comment.
The written comment is considered the
official comment and should include
discussion of all points you wish to
make. The EPA will generally not
consider comments or comment
contents located outside of the primary
submission (i.e. on the web, cloud, or
other file sharing system). For
additional submission methods, the full
EPA public comment policy,
information about CBI or multimedia
submissions, and general guidance on
making effective comments, please visit
https://www2.epa.gov/dockets/
commenting-epa-dockets.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jeff
Hunt, Air Planning Unit, Office of Air
and Waste (OAW–150), Environmental
Protection Agency—Region 10, 1200
Sixth Ave, Seattle, WA 98101;
telephone number: (206) 553–0256,
email address: hunt.jeff@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Throughout this document whenever
‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’ or ‘‘our’’ is used, it is
intended to refer to the EPA.
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
I. Background
Oregon submitted its initial regional
haze SIP to the EPA on December 20,
2010, and submitted supplemental
information on February 1, 2011. The
EPA approved portions of the Oregon
regional haze SIP as meeting certain
requirements of the regional haze
program, including the requirements for
best available retrofit technology, on
July 5, 2011, and the remaining portions
of the regional haze SIP on August 22,
2012.1 Five years after submittal of the
initial regional haze plan, states are
required to submit progress reports that
evaluate progress towards the RPGs for
each mandatory Class I Federal area 2
1 See
76 FR 38997 and 77 FR 50611.
2 Areas designated as mandatory Class I Federal
areas consist of national parks exceeding 6000
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:06 Mar 16, 2018
Jkt 244001
(Class I area) within the state and in
each Class I area outside the state which
may be affected by emissions from
within the state. 40 CFR 51.308(g).
States are also required to submit, at the
same time as the progress report, a
determination of the adequacy of the
state’s existing regional haze plan. 40
CFR 51.308(h). On July 18, 2017, the
Oregon Department of Environmental
Quality (ODEQ) submitted as a SIP
revision a report on the progress made
in the first implementation period
towards the RPGs for Class I areas. The
EPA is proposing to approve Oregon’s
progress report on the basis that it
satisfies the requirements of 40 CFR
51.308. We also propose to find that
Oregon’s progress report demonstrates
that the state’s long-term strategy and
emission control measures in the
existing regional haze SIP are sufficient
to enable Oregon to meet all established
RPGs for 2018.
II. Context for Understanding Oregon’s
Progress Report
To facilitate a better understanding of
Oregon’s progress report as well as the
EPA’s evaluation of it, this section
provides background on the regional
haze program in Oregon.
A. Framework for Measuring Progress
The EPA has established a metric for
determining visibility conditions at
Class I areas referred to as the ‘‘deciview
index,’’ which is measured in
deciviews, as defined in 40 CFR 51.301.
The deciview index is calculated using
monitoring data collected from the
Interagency Monitoring of Protected
Visual Environments (IMPROVE)
network monitors. Oregon has twelve
Class I areas within its borders: Mt.
Hood Wilderness, Mt. Jefferson
Wilderness, Mt. Washington
Wilderness, Three Sisters Wilderness,
Diamond Peak Wilderness, Crater Lake
National Park, Mountain Lakes
Wilderness, Gearhart Mountain
Wilderness, Kalmiopsis Wilderness,
Strawberry Mountain Wilderness, Eagle
Cap Wilderness, and Hells Canyon
Wilderness. Monitoring data
representing visibility conditions in
Oregon’s 12 Class I areas was based on
the six IMPROVE monitors identified in
Table 1. As shown in the table, the
CRLA1 monitoring site represents four
Class I areas, the THSI1 site represents
three areas, and the SRAR1 site
represents two areas.
acres, wilderness areas and national memorial parks
exceeding 5000 acres, and all international parks
that were in existence on August 7, 1977 (42 U.S.C.
7472(a)). Listed at 40 CFR part 81, subpart D.
PO 00000
Frm 00026
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
TABLE 1—OREGON IMPROVE MONITORING SITES AND REPRESENTED
CLASS I AREAS
Site code
Class I area
MOHO1 ......
THSI1 .........
Mt. Hood Wilderness.
Mt. Jefferson Wilderness.
Mt. Washington Wilderness.
Three Sisters Wilderness.
Crater Lake National Park.
Diamond Peak Wilderness.
Mountain Lakes Wilderness.
Gearhart Mountain Wilderness.
Kalmiopsis Wilderness.
Strawberry Mountain Wilderness.
Eagle Cap Wilderness.
Hells Canyon Wilderness Area.
CRLA1 ........
KALM1 ........
STAR1 ........
HECA1 .......
In developing its initial regional haze
SIP as part of the Western Regional Air
Partnership (WRAP), Oregon
determined, and the EPA in its approval
agreed, that no major contributions were
identified that necessitated developing
new interstate strategies, mitigation
measures, or emission reduction
obligations with respect to visibility in
other western states.3 Therefore,
Oregon’s progress report does not
address visibility impacts from sources
in other states or the visibility impact of
Oregon sources on Class I areas in other
states.
Under the RHR, a state’s initial
regional haze SIP must establish two
RPGs for each of its Class I areas: one
for the 20 percent least impaired days
and one for the 20 percent most
impaired days. The RPGs must provide
for an improvement in visibility on the
20 percent most impaired days and
ensure no degradation in visibility on
the 20 percent least impaired days, as
compared to visibility conditions during
the baseline period. In establishing the
RPGs, a state must consider the uniform
rate of visibility improvement from the
baseline to natural conditions in 2064
and the emission reductions measures
needed to achieve it. Oregon set the
RPGs for its twelve Class I areas based
on regional atmospheric air quality
modeling conducted by the WRAP using
projected emission reductions in
western states from federal and state
control strategies expected to be in place
before 2018.
B. Data Sources for Oregon’s Progress
Report
Oregon relied on the WRAP technical
data and analyses in a report titled
‘‘Western Regional Air Partnership
Regional Haze Rule Reasonable Progress
Summary Report’’ (WRAP Report),
dated June 28, 2013. The WRAP report
3 76
E:\FR\FM\19MRP1.SGM
FR 12651, 12663–64; 76 FR 38997.
19MRP1
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 53 / Monday, March 19, 2018 / Proposed Rules
was prepared for the 15 western state
members to provide the technical basis
for the first of their individual progress
reports. Data are presented in this report
on a regional, state, and Class I area
specific basis that characterize the
difference between baseline conditions
(2000–2004) and the first 5-year
progress period (2005–2009). In
developing the progress report, Oregon
also evaluated visibility conditions in
its twelve Class I areas based on the
most recent 5-year data available at the
time Oregon developed the progress
report (2010–2014).
1. BART-Level Controls
Oregon’s regional haze SIP identified
four BART eligible facilities: The
Portland General Electric (PGE)
Boardman electric power plant, the PGE
Beaver electric power plant, the
Georgia-Pacific Wauna Mill, and the
International Paper Company mill in
Springfield. Of these four facilities, only
PGE Boardman was found to be subject
to BART. Accordingly, PGE Boardman
installed low nitrogen oxide (NOX)
burners with a modified over-fire air
system in 2011 and is meeting BART
NOX emission limitations. In early 2014,
BART sulfur dioxide (SO2) controls,
consisting of a semi-dry flue gas
desulfurization system, were installed at
PGE Boardman. This facility now
complies with the initial BART SO2
emission limit. A further reduction in
the SO2 emission limit is required at
PGE Boardman by 2018. Finally, the
BART requirements for the PGE
Boardman plant include permanently
ceasing burning coal in the main boiler
by December 31, 2020.
In addition to the BART-level controls
on the PGE Boardman power plant,
three BART-eligible sources took
federally enforceable emission limits to
avoid being subject to BART.
Specifically, the PGE Beaver electric
power plant has six combined cycle
turbines that are the BART-eligible
emission units. PGE requested daily fuel
oil limits for these turbines, as well as
a requirement that all future oil contain
no more than 0.0015% sulfur. An
equation was developed to determine a
daily fuel oil quantity limit that was tied
to the sulfur content of the fuel, so as
not to exceed the visibility threshold
level of 0.5 deciview.5 This plant has a
Title V operating permit, which was
modified on January 21, 2009, to
incorporate federally enforceable permit
limits (FEPLs), which included the
above daily fuel oil limits and sulfur
content in fuel oil burned at the plant.
Georgia-Pacific proposed a FEPL for
its Wauna Mill which provided for
reduced emissions of visibility
impairing pollutants in two steps. The
non-condensible gas (NCG) incinerator,
which was the largest source of SO2
emissions at the mill, was eliminated,
and restrictions on the use of fuel oil
were established through FEPLs:
• The use of fuel oil in the power
boiler was permanently discontinued.
• Use of fuel oil in the lime kiln was
discontinued until the NCG incinerator
was eliminated, after which fuel oil was
again used.
• The maximum pulp production rate
was limited to 1,030 tons per day until
completion of this project, after which
the maximum pulp production limit
would increase to 1,350 tons per day.
This plant has a Title V operating
permit, number 04–0004, which was
modified on June 18, 2009, to
incorporate the FEPL requirements. This
permit was again revised on December
2, 2010, to reflect elimination of the
NCG incinerator.
The International Paper Company
mill in Springfield manufactures
linerboard, primarily from wood chips
and recycled old corrugated containers.
This plant has seven different BARTeligible emission units. In order to
minimize the likelihood of exceeding
the 0.5 deciview visibility threshold,
FEPLs were established including a
4 The progress report also included a summary of
stationary, mobile, and area source control
measures that provide supplemental emissions
reductions as part of the long-term strategy
discussion in Chapter 2.3.
5 Under the approved Oregon regional haze SIP,
any source with an impact of greater than 0.5
deciview in any Class I area, including Class I areas
in other states, would be subject to additional BART
analysis and BART emission limitations.
III. The EPA’s Evaluation of Oregon’s
Progress Report
This section describes the contents of
Oregon’s progress report and the EPA’s
evaluation of the report, as well as the
EPA’s evaluation of the determination of
adequacy required by 40 CFR 51.308(h)
and the requirement for state and
Federal Land Manager coordination in
40 CFR 51.308(i).
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
A. Status of Implementation of All
Measures Included in the Regional Haze
SIP
In its progress report, Oregon
provided a description of the two key
control measures that the state relied on
to implement the regional haze program:
best available retrofit technology
(BART), including enforceable emission
limits on BART-eligible sources, and its
smoke management program for forestry
burning.4 Oregon included a description
of these programs which are
summarized below.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:06 Mar 16, 2018
Jkt 244001
PO 00000
Frm 00027
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
11929
restriction on fuel oil could be burned
at the facility. The plant’s Title V
operating permit was modified on April
7, 2009, to incorporate the FEPL
requirements. Compliance with the
condition to limit visibility impacts is
demonstrated through the use of a
formula, emission factors, and
continuous emissions monitoring data.
Oregon’s 2010 regional haze SIP
identified a fifth facility, the
Amalgamated Sugar Company’s sugar
beet processing facility located in Nyssa.
This facility has potential impacts
greater than 0.5 deciview for the Eagle
Cap Wilderness Area based on
CALPUFF modeling of 2003–2005
emissions. As noted in the progress
report, ‘‘The plant is currently
shutdown, and has not identified a date
to resume operations. DEQ’s BART rules
in 340–223–0040(3) specify that this
facility must either modify its permit by
adopting an FEPL or be subject to
BART, before resuming operation. At
this time, this facility is still shutdown,
and the permit has not been modified.’’
2. Smoke Management
Throughout the first regional haze
planning period, Oregon implemented
its Smoke Management Plan (smoke
management plan). The primary
purpose of the smoke management plan
is to keep smoke from forestland
prescribed burning from being carried
into smoke sensitive receptor areas,
generally population centers, and to
provide opportunity for essential
forestland burning while minimizing
emissions. Smoke from agricultural and
forestry burning are major contributors
to Class I area visibility impairment and
regional haze in Oregon and the western
United States. The pollutant species
contribution identified in the Oregon
regional haze SIP showed that a
significant portion of the 20% most
impaired days in all of Oregon’s Class
I areas is from organic and elemental
carbon, due to fire emissions. Much of
this contribution is from wildfire, which
fluctuates significantly from year to
year. However, there is also a sizable
contribution from controlled burning,
which is dominated by agricultural and
forestry burning.
Under Oregon Revised Statutes (ORS)
477.013, the State Forester and ODEQ
are required to protect air quality
through a smoke management plan,
which was included in the SIP. Oregon
Department of Forestry (ODF) smoke
management rules are listed in Oregon
Administrative Rules (OAR) 629–048–
0001 to 629–048–0500, 629–043–0043,
and 629–043–0041.
On November 2, 2007, ODF adopted
revisions to the smoke management
E:\FR\FM\19MRP1.SGM
19MRP1
11930
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 53 / Monday, March 19, 2018 / Proposed Rules
plan to incorporate numerous changes
to provide protection of air quality and
visibility in Class I areas. New visibility
protection provisions were adopted in
OAR 629–048–0130 that incorporated
references to the regional haze SIP,
including the Enhanced Smoke
Management Program (ESMP) criteria in
section 309 of the Regional Haze Rule.
Oregon continues to evaluate the impact
of prescribed fire on Class I areas and
make necessary improvements. As a
result, Oregon revised the smoke
management plan again in 2014 to
incorporate practices to minimize
impacts to the Kalmiopsis Wilderness
and Crater Lake National Park. The 2014
revisions to the smoke management
plan were submitted as a revision to the
SIP and will be addressed in a separate
action.
B. Summary of Visibility Conditions
In addition to the evaluation of
control measures, Oregon documented
in the progress report the differences
between the visibility conditions during
the baseline period (2000–2004), the
first progress period (2005–2009), and
the most current five year averaging
period (2010–2014) based on data that
were available at the time Oregon
developed the progress report.
TABLE 2—OREGON CLASS I AREA VISIBILITY CONDITIONS ON THE 20% MOST AND LEAST IMPAIRED DAY
20% Most impaired days
Oregon
class I area
20% Least impaired days
MOHO1 Northern Cascades .....
THES1 Central Cascades .........
CRLA1 Southern Cascades ......
KALM1 Coast Range ................
STAR1 Eastern Oregon ............
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
HECA1 Eastern Oregon/Western Idaho.
2010–14
Current
period
2018
RPGs
2000–04
Baseline
2005–09
First
progress
period
2010–14
Current
period
2018
RPGs
(dv)
(dv)
(dv)
(dv)
(dv)
(dv)
(dv)
Mt. Hood Wilderness Area ........
Mt. Jefferson, Mt. Washington,
and Three Sisters Wilderness
Areas.
Crater Lake National Park; Diamond Peak, Mountain Lakes,
and Gearhart Mountain Wilderness Areas.
Kalmiopsis Wilderness Area .....
Strawberry Mountain and Eagle
Cap Wilderness Areas.
Hells Canyon Wilderness Area
Based on the information in Chapter
3.2 of the progress report, Oregon
demonstrated that all Class I areas
experienced improvements in visibility
for the 20% most and least impaired
days between the baseline (2000–2004)
and current (2010–2014) visibility
periods, as shown in Tables 16 and 17
of the progress report, and summarized
in Table 2 above. Oregon’s progress
report included an analysis of progress
and impediments to progress. Oregon
noted that there have been significant
improvements in visibility conditions
on both the 20% most and least
impaired days, meeting the 2018 RPGs
for all Oregon Class I areas except at the
THSI1 monitor, which tracks visibility
conditions for the Mt. Jefferson, Mt.
Washington and Three Sisters
wilderness areas in the Oregon Central
Cascades.
In the Oregon Central Cascades,
progress towards the RPGs has been
slower than anticipated, and Oregon
attributed this slower progress to
visibility impairment due to smoke from
episodic wildfires in the area. The
visibility conditions on the 20% most
impaired days in the Central Cascades
had improved by 0.4 deciviews between
the baseline and current progress
periods, but had not yet met the 2018
RPG. Tables 17, 18 and 21 and Figure
20 of the report show that, even though
VerDate Sep<11>2014
2000–04
Baseline
(dv)
Monitor/region
2005–09
First
progress
period
16:06 Mar 16, 2018
Jkt 244001
14.9
15.3
13.7
16.2
13.2
14.9
13.8
14.3
2.2
3.0
1.7
3.0
1.3
2.5
2.0
2.9
13.7
13.8
11.7
13.4
1.7
1.6
1.2
1.5
15.5
18.6
16.4
16.2
14.6
12.5
15.1
17.5
6.3
4.5
6.4
3.6
6.1
2.8
6.1
4.1
18.6
18.2
16.3
16.6
5.5
4.8
4.1
4.7
there had been a steady reduction in
ammonium sulfate formation since
2000, indicative of a reduction in
anthropogenic contributions to visibility
impairment at this site, particulate
organic aerosols has consistently
remained the dominant contributor to
light extinction, with notable spikes in
the summers of 2011 and 2012. Oregon
attributed this increase in organic
aerosols to wildfire smoke. The 2011
and 2012 fires potentially impacting the
THSI1 monitor included the Mother
Lode (2,661 acres), Shadow Lake
(10,000 acres), High Cascades (108,154
acres), and Pole Creek (26,000 acres)
fires, as illustrated in Figure 21 of the
report.
Oregon’s progress report concluded
that the state is making adequate
progress in improving visibility as a
result of actions identified in the
regional haze SIP. The average trends
for least impaired days show
improvement at every monitoring
location, with all areas currently
meeting the 2018 RPGs for the 20% least
impaired days. Similarly, average trends
for most impaired days show
improvement at every monitoring
location, with all areas except the
Central Cascades, as described above,
meeting the 2018 RPGs. The progress
report also contained a review of
Oregon’s visibility monitoring strategy,
PO 00000
Frm 00028
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
concluding that the IMPROVE network
continues to comply with the
monitoring requirements in the Regional
Haze Rule and that no modifications to
Oregon’s visibility monitoring strategy
are necessary at this time.
C. Summary of Emissions Reductions
The Oregon progress report also
includes a summary of the emissions
reductions achieved throughout the
state through implementation of the
control measures relied upon to achieve
reasonable progress. Specifically,
Oregon identified in the progress report
emissions reductions achieved through
controls on Oregon BART-eligible
sources. The Oregon progress report
included the emissions reductions
achieved at the PGE Boardman Plant,
the PGE Beaver Plant, the Georgia
Pacific Wauna Mill, and International
Paper Mill. According to the Oregon
progress report, implementation of
control measures caused significant
reductions in SO2 emissions at all four
facilities, as well as reductions in NOX
and coarse particulate matter (PM10)
emissions at all facilities except the
Georgia Pacific Wauna Mill. The
progress report also detailed emissions
reductions achieved as part of the
smoke management program. In
particular, the progress report highlights
alternatives to burning such as biomass
E:\FR\FM\19MRP1.SGM
19MRP1
11931
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 53 / Monday, March 19, 2018 / Proposed Rules
removal, chipping, and other techniques
to reduce fire hazard, offsetting up to
13,500 tons of fine particulate emissions
estimated in 2015 compared to burning.
In addition, the progress report
summarized changes in emission
inventories for all major visibility
impairing pollutants from point, area,
on-road mobile, off-road mobile, oil and
gas, fugitive and road dust, and
anthropogenic fire source categories in
the state. For these summaries,
emissions during the baseline years are
represented using a 2002 inventory,
which was developed with support from
the WRAP for use in the original
regional haze SIP development.
Differences between inventories are
represented as the difference between
the 2002 inventory, and a 2008
inventory which leverages recent
inventory development work performed
by the WRAP for the West-wide Jump
Start Air Quality Modeling Study
(WestJumpAQMS) and Deterministic &
Empirical Assessment of Smoke’s
Contribution to Ozone Project
(DEASCO3) modeling projects.
Oregon’s progress report noted that
the emissions inventories were
complicated by the changes and
enhancements that have occurred
between development of the baseline
and current period emissions
inventories. Oregon stated that many of
the differences between inventories are
more reflective of changes in inventory
methodology, rather that changes in
actual emissions. An example is the
reclassification of some off-road mobile
sources (such as some types of marine
vessels and locomotives) into the area
source category in 2008, which may
have contributed to increases in area
source inventory totals, but decreases in
off-road mobile totals.
Notwithstanding these differences
between the 2002 and 2008 emissions
inventory methodologies, estimated
emissions reductions for SO2 and NOX
are summarized in Tables 3 and 4. We
note that the other visibility impairing
pollutants (primary organic aerosols,
elemental carbon, fine soil, and coarse
matter) also generally declined as
detailed in Chapter 3.4 of the progress
report.6
TABLE 3—SULFUR DIOXIDE EMISSIONS BY CATEGORY
Sulfur dioxide emissions
(tons/year)
2002
2008
Difference
(percent change)
Anthropogenic Sources
Point .....................................................................................................................................
Area .....................................................................................................................................
On-Road Mobile ...................................................................................................................
Off-Road Mobile ...................................................................................................................
Area Oil and Gas .................................................................................................................
Fugitive and Road Dust .......................................................................................................
Anthropogenic Fire ..............................................................................................................
18,493
9,932
3,446
6,535
0
0
1,586
15,918
1,528
654
431
0
0
1,403
–2,575
–8,404
–2,792
–6,104
0
0
–182
Total Anthropogenic .....................................................................................................
39,992
19,934
–20,058 (–50%)
Natural Fire ..........................................................................................................................
Biogenic ...............................................................................................................................
Wind Blown Dust .................................................................................................................
7,328
0
0
1,207
0
0
–6,121
0
0
Total Natural .................................................................................................................
7,328
1,207
–6,121 (–84%)
47,320
21,140
–26,180 (–55%)
Natural Sources
All Sources
Total Emissions ............................................................................................................
TABLE 4—OXIDES OF NITROGEN EMISSIONS BY CATEGORY
Oxides of nitrogen emissions
(tons/year)
2002
2008
Difference
(percent change)
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
Anthropogenic Sources
Point .....................................................................................................................................
Area .....................................................................................................................................
On-Road Mobile ...................................................................................................................
Off-Road Mobile ...................................................................................................................
Area Oil and Gas .................................................................................................................
6 Fine soil and coarse mass decreased for the
windblown dust inventory comparisons and
increased for the combined fugitive/road dust
inventories. Oregon noted that large variability in
changes in windblown dust was observed for the
contiguous WRAP states, which was likely due in
large part to enhancements in dust inventory
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:06 Mar 16, 2018
Jkt 244001
methodology, rather than changes in actual
emissions. For most parameters, especially primary
organic aerosols, volatile organic compounds, and
elemental carbon, natural fire emission inventory
estimates decreased, and anthropogenic fire
estimates increased. Oregon noted that these
differences are not necessarily reflective of changes
PO 00000
Frm 00029
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
26,160
14,740
111,646
53,896
85
23,548
24,121
98,399
23,463
0
¥2,612
9,381
¥13,247
¥30,434
¥85
in monitored data, as the baseline period is
represented by an average of 2000–2004 fire
emissions, and the progress period is represented
only by the fires that occurred in 2008, as
referenced in section 3.3.1 of the progress report.
E:\FR\FM\19MRP1.SGM
19MRP1
11932
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 53 / Monday, March 19, 2018 / Proposed Rules
TABLE 4—OXIDES OF NITROGEN EMISSIONS BY CATEGORY—Continued
Oxides of nitrogen emissions
(tons/year)
2002
2008
Difference
(percent change)
Fugitive and Road Dust .......................................................................................................
Anthropogenic Fire ..............................................................................................................
0
6,292
0
9,923
0
3,630
Total Anthropogenic .....................................................................................................
212,819
179,453
¥33,366 (¥16%)
Natural Fire ..........................................................................................................................
Biogenic ...............................................................................................................................
Wind Blown Dust .................................................................................................................
27,397
16,527
0
8,521
5,560
0
¥18,876
¥10,967
0
Total Natural .................................................................................................................
43,924
14,081
¥29,843 (¥68%)
256,744
193,534
¥63,209 (–25%)
Natural Sources
All Sources
Total Emissions ............................................................................................................
In its progress report, Oregon
concluded that the state is making
adequate progress in improving
visibility as a result of actions identified
in the regional haze SIP, as well as
actions taken by adjoining states, the
federal government, and compliance
with international treaty, as described in
more detail in the ‘‘Long Term Strategy
Update’’ chapter of the progress report.
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
D. Determination of Adequacy (40 CFR
51.308(h))
In accordance with 40 CFR
51.308(h)(1), if the state determines, at
the time the five-year progress report is
submitted, that the existing
implementation plan requires no further
substantive revision at this time in order
to achieve established goals for visibility
improvement and emissions reductions,
the state must provide to the
Administrator a negative declaration
that further revision of the existing
implementation plan is not needed at
this time. Within the progress report,
the State of Oregon provided a negative
declaration stating that further revision
of the existing implementation plan is
not needed. The basis for the state’s
negative declaration is the finding that
visibility on the 20% most and least
impaired days has improved, and 2018
RPGs attained at all Oregon IMPROVE
monitors, except for the 20% most
impaired days at the Central Cascades
monitor, which Oregon demonstrated
was due to smoke from wildfires in
2011 and 2012. Accordingly, the EPA
proposes to find that Oregon adequately
addressed the requirements in 40 CFR
51.308(h) in its determination that the
existing Oregon regional haze SIP
requires no substantive revisions at this
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:06 Mar 16, 2018
Jkt 244001
time to achieve the established RPGs for
Class I areas.
CFR 51.308(i) regarding state
coordination with FLMs.
E. Consultation With Federal Land
Managers (40 CFR 51.308(i))
V. Statutory and Executive Order
Reviews
In accordance with 40 CFR 51.308(i),
the state must provide the FLMs with an
opportunity for consultation, in person
and at least 60 days prior to holding any
public hearings on an implementation
plan (or plan revision). The state must
also include a description of how it
addressed any comments provided by
the FLMs. The State of Oregon invited
the FLMs to comment on its draft
progress report on February 3, 2016, for
a 60-day comment period ending April
4, 2016, prior to releasing the report for
public comment. The FLM comments
and Oregon’s responses are presented in
Appendix D of the progress report.
The EPA proposes to find that Oregon
has addressed the requirements in 40
CFR 51.308(i). Oregon provided a 60day period for the FLMs to comment on
the progress report, which was at least
60 days before seeking public
comments, and provided a summary of
these comments and responses to these
comments in the progress report.
Under the CAA, the Administrator is
required to approve a SIP submission
that complies with the provisions of the
CAA and applicable Federal
regulations.7 Thus, in reviewing SIP
submissions, the EPA’s role is to
approve state choices, provided that
they meet the criteria of the CAA.
Accordingly, this proposed action
merely approves state law as meeting
Federal requirements, and does not
impose additional requirements beyond
those imposed by state law. For that
reason, this proposed action:
• Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory
action’’ subject to review by the Office
of Management and Budget under
Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735,
October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821,
January 21, 2011);
• is not an Executive Order 13771 (82
FR 9339, February 2, 2017) regulatory
action because actions such as SIP
approvals are exempted under
Executive Order 12866;
• does not impose an information
collection burden under the provisions
of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
• is certified as not having a
significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities
under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5
U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
• does not contain any unfunded
mandate or significantly or uniquely
affect small governments, as described
IV. The EPA’s Proposed Action
The EPA is proposing to approve the
Oregon Regional Haze Progress Report
submitted to the EPA on July 18, 2017,
as meeting the applicable requirements
of the CAA and RHR, as set forth in 40
CFR 51.308(g). The EPA proposes to
find that the existing regional haze SIP
is adequate to meet the state’s visibility
goals and requires no substantive
revision at this time, as set forth in 40
CFR 51.308(h). We propose to find that
Oregon fulfilled the requirements in 40
PO 00000
Frm 00030
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
7 42
E:\FR\FM\19MRP1.SGM
U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a).
19MRP1
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 53 / Monday, March 19, 2018 / Proposed Rules
in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4);
• does not have Federalism
implications as specified in Executive
Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10,
1999);
• is not an economically significant
regulatory action based on health or
safety risks subject to Executive Order
13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);
• is not a significant regulatory action
subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR
28355, May 22, 2001);
• is not subject to requirements of
Section 12(d) of the National
Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because
this rulemaking does not involve
technical standards; and
• does not provide the EPA with the
discretionary authority to address, as
appropriate, disproportionate human
health or environmental effects, using
practicable and legally permissible
methods, under Executive Order 12898
(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
In addition, this proposed action does
not apply on any Indian reservation
land or in any other area where the EPA
or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that
a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of
Indian country, the rule does not have
tribal implications as specified by
Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249,
November 9, 2000).
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air
pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations,
Nitrogen dioxide, Particulate matter,
Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Sulfur oxides, Visibility,
Volatile organic compounds.
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Dated: February 26, 2018.
Chris Hladick,
Regional Administrator, Region 10.
[FR Doc. 2018–04931 Filed 3–16–18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
[EPA–R01–OAR–2017–0065; FRL–9975–
43—Region 1]
Air Plan Approval; Connecticut;
Infrastructure State Implementation
Plan Requirements; Prevention of
Significant Deterioration Permit
Program Revisions
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
AGENCY:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:06 Mar 16, 2018
Jkt 244001
The Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve
elements of a State Implementation Plan
(SIP) submission from Connecticut
regarding the infrastructure
requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA
or Act) for the 2012 fine particle (PM2.5)
National Ambient Air Quality Standards
(NAAQS), and a SIP submission
addressing interstate transport
requirements of the CAA for the 2006
PM2.5 NAAQS. In addition, we are
proposing to approve one statute
included in the SIP for the 2012 PM2.5
NAAQS. The infrastructure
requirements are designed to ensure that
the structural components of each
state’s air quality management program
are adequate to meet the state’s
responsibilities under the CAA. The
EPA is also proposing to approve
revisions to the SIP submitted by
Connecticut on October 18, 2017,
satisfying Connecticut’s earlier
commitment to adopt and submit
provisions that meet certain
requirements of the federal Prevention
of Significant Deterioration (PSD)
permit program. In addition, we are
proposing to convert the June 3, 2016
conditional approval for elements of
Connecticut’s infrastructure SIP
regarding PSD requirements to treat
nitrogen oxides (NOX) as a precursor to
ozone and to establish a minor source
baseline date for PM2.5 emissions. This
action is being taken under the Clean
Air Act.
DATES: Written comments must be
received on or before April 18, 2018.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments,
identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R01–
OAR–2017–0065 at https://
www.regulations.gov, or via email to
simcox.alison@epa.gov. For comments
submitted at Regulations.gov, follow the
online instructions for submitting
comments. Once submitted, comments
cannot be edited or removed from
Regulations.gov. For either manner of
submission, the EPA may publish any
comment received to its public docket.
Do not submit electronically any
information you consider to be
Confidential Business Information (CBI)
or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Multimedia
submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be
accompanied by a written comment.
The written comment is considered the
official comment and should include
discussion of all points you wish to
make. The EPA will generally not
consider comments or comment
contents located outside of the primary
submission (i.e., on the web, cloud, or
other file sharing system). For
additional submission methods, please
SUMMARY:
PO 00000
Frm 00031
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
11933
contact the person identified in the ‘‘FOR
section.
For the full EPA public comment policy,
information about CBI or multimedia
submissions, and general guidance on
making effective comments, please visit
www.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epadockets.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Alison C. Simcox, Air Quality Unit, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, EPA
New England Regional Office, 5 Post
Office Square—Suite 100 (Mail code
OEP05–2), Boston, MA 02109—3912,
tel. (617) 918–1684; simcox.alison@
epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Throughout this document whenever
‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’ or ‘‘our’’ is used, we mean
EPA.
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT’’
Table of Contents
I. Background and Purpose
A. What Connecticut SIP submissions does
this rulemaking address?
B. What is the scope of this rulemaking?
II. What guidance is EPA using to evaluate
these SIP submissions?
III. EPA’s Review
A. Section 110(a)(2)(A)—Emission Limits
and Other Control Measures
B. Section 110(a)(2)(B)—Ambient Air
Quality Monitoring/Data System
C. Section 110(a)(2)(C)—Program for
Enforcement of Control Measures and for
Construction or Modification of
Stationary Sources
D. Section 110(a)(2)(D)—Interstate
Transport
E. Section 110(a)(2)(E)—Adequate
Resources
F. Section 110(a)(2)(F)—Stationary Source
Monitoring System
G. Section 110(a)(2)(G)—Emergency
Powers
H. Section 110(a)(2)(H)—Future SIP
Revisions
I. Section 110(a)(2)(I)—Nonattainment Area
Plan or Plan Revisions Under Part D
J. Section 110(a)(2)(J)—Consultation With
Government Officials; Public
Notifications; Prevention of Significant
Deterioration; Visibility Protection
K. Section 110(a)(2)(K)—Air Quality
Modeling/Data
L. Section 110(a)(2)(L)—Permitting Fees
M. Section 110(a)(2)(M)—Consultation/
Participation by Affected Local Entities
N. Connecticut Statute Submitted for
Incorporation Into the SIP
IV Proposed Action
V. Incorporation by Reference
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. Background and Purpose
A. What Connecticut SIP submissions
does this rulemaking address?
This rulemaking addresses three
submissions from the Connecticut
Department of Energy and
Environmental Protection (CT DEEP).
The state submitted a SIP addressing the
E:\FR\FM\19MRP1.SGM
19MRP1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 53 (Monday, March 19, 2018)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 11927-11933]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2018-04931]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA-R10-OAR-2017-0482; FRL-9975-22-Region 10]
Air Plan Approval; Oregon; Regional Haze Progress Report
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to
approve a revision to the Oregon Regional Haze State Implementation
Plan (SIP), submitted by the State of Oregon on July 18, 2017. Oregon
submitted its Regional Haze Progress Report (``progress report'' or
``report'') and a negative declaration stating that further revision of
the existing regional haze SIP is not needed at this time. Oregon
submitted both the progress report and the negative declaration in the
form of implementation plan revisions as required by federal
regulations. The progress report addresses the federal Regional Haze
Rule (RHR) requirements under the Clean Air Act (CAA) to submit a
report describing progress in achieving reasonable progress goals
(RPGs) established for regional haze and a determination of the
adequacy of the
[[Page 11928]]
state's existing plan addressing regional haze.
DATES: Comments must be received on or before April 18, 2018.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R10-
OAR-2017-0482 at https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online
instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot
be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. The EPA may publish any
comment received to its public docket. Do not submit electronically any
information you consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI)
or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a
written comment. The written comment is considered the official comment
and should include discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA
will generally not consider comments or comment contents located
outside of the primary submission (i.e. on the web, cloud, or other
file sharing system). For additional submission methods, the full EPA
public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions,
and general guidance on making effective comments, please visit https://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jeff Hunt, Air Planning Unit, Office
of Air and Waste (OAW-150), Environmental Protection Agency--Region 10,
1200 Sixth Ave, Seattle, WA 98101; telephone number: (206) 553-0256,
email address: [email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document whenever ``we,''
``us,'' or ``our'' is used, it is intended to refer to the EPA.
I. Background
Oregon submitted its initial regional haze SIP to the EPA on
December 20, 2010, and submitted supplemental information on February
1, 2011. The EPA approved portions of the Oregon regional haze SIP as
meeting certain requirements of the regional haze program, including
the requirements for best available retrofit technology, on July 5,
2011, and the remaining portions of the regional haze SIP on August 22,
2012.\1\ Five years after submittal of the initial regional haze plan,
states are required to submit progress reports that evaluate progress
towards the RPGs for each mandatory Class I Federal area \2\ (Class I
area) within the state and in each Class I area outside the state which
may be affected by emissions from within the state. 40 CFR 51.308(g).
States are also required to submit, at the same time as the progress
report, a determination of the adequacy of the state's existing
regional haze plan. 40 CFR 51.308(h). On July 18, 2017, the Oregon
Department of Environmental Quality (ODEQ) submitted as a SIP revision
a report on the progress made in the first implementation period
towards the RPGs for Class I areas. The EPA is proposing to approve
Oregon's progress report on the basis that it satisfies the
requirements of 40 CFR 51.308. We also propose to find that Oregon's
progress report demonstrates that the state's long-term strategy and
emission control measures in the existing regional haze SIP are
sufficient to enable Oregon to meet all established RPGs for 2018.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See 76 FR 38997 and 77 FR 50611.
\2\ Areas designated as mandatory Class I Federal areas consist
of national parks exceeding 6000 acres, wilderness areas and
national memorial parks exceeding 5000 acres, and all international
parks that were in existence on August 7, 1977 (42 U.S.C. 7472(a)).
Listed at 40 CFR part 81, subpart D.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
II. Context for Understanding Oregon's Progress Report
To facilitate a better understanding of Oregon's progress report as
well as the EPA's evaluation of it, this section provides background on
the regional haze program in Oregon.
A. Framework for Measuring Progress
The EPA has established a metric for determining visibility
conditions at Class I areas referred to as the ``deciview index,''
which is measured in deciviews, as defined in 40 CFR 51.301. The
deciview index is calculated using monitoring data collected from the
Interagency Monitoring of Protected Visual Environments (IMPROVE)
network monitors. Oregon has twelve Class I areas within its borders:
Mt. Hood Wilderness, Mt. Jefferson Wilderness, Mt. Washington
Wilderness, Three Sisters Wilderness, Diamond Peak Wilderness, Crater
Lake National Park, Mountain Lakes Wilderness, Gearhart Mountain
Wilderness, Kalmiopsis Wilderness, Strawberry Mountain Wilderness,
Eagle Cap Wilderness, and Hells Canyon Wilderness. Monitoring data
representing visibility conditions in Oregon's 12 Class I areas was
based on the six IMPROVE monitors identified in Table 1. As shown in
the table, the CRLA1 monitoring site represents four Class I areas, the
THSI1 site represents three areas, and the SRAR1 site represents two
areas.
Table 1--Oregon IMPROVE Monitoring Sites and Represented Class I Areas
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Site code Class I area
------------------------------------------------------------------------
MOHO1.................................. Mt. Hood Wilderness.
THSI1.................................. Mt. Jefferson Wilderness.
Mt. Washington Wilderness.
Three Sisters Wilderness.
CRLA1.................................. Crater Lake National Park.
Diamond Peak Wilderness.
Mountain Lakes Wilderness.
Gearhart Mountain Wilderness.
KALM1.................................. Kalmiopsis Wilderness.
STAR1.................................. Strawberry Mountain Wilderness.
Eagle Cap Wilderness.
HECA1.................................. Hells Canyon Wilderness Area.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
In developing its initial regional haze SIP as part of the Western
Regional Air Partnership (WRAP), Oregon determined, and the EPA in its
approval agreed, that no major contributions were identified that
necessitated developing new interstate strategies, mitigation measures,
or emission reduction obligations with respect to visibility in other
western states.\3\ Therefore, Oregon's progress report does not address
visibility impacts from sources in other states or the visibility
impact of Oregon sources on Class I areas in other states.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ 76 FR 12651, 12663-64; 76 FR 38997.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Under the RHR, a state's initial regional haze SIP must establish
two RPGs for each of its Class I areas: one for the 20 percent least
impaired days and one for the 20 percent most impaired days. The RPGs
must provide for an improvement in visibility on the 20 percent most
impaired days and ensure no degradation in visibility on the 20 percent
least impaired days, as compared to visibility conditions during the
baseline period. In establishing the RPGs, a state must consider the
uniform rate of visibility improvement from the baseline to natural
conditions in 2064 and the emission reductions measures needed to
achieve it. Oregon set the RPGs for its twelve Class I areas based on
regional atmospheric air quality modeling conducted by the WRAP using
projected emission reductions in western states from federal and state
control strategies expected to be in place before 2018.
B. Data Sources for Oregon's Progress Report
Oregon relied on the WRAP technical data and analyses in a report
titled ``Western Regional Air Partnership Regional Haze Rule Reasonable
Progress Summary Report'' (WRAP Report), dated June 28, 2013. The WRAP
report
[[Page 11929]]
was prepared for the 15 western state members to provide the technical
basis for the first of their individual progress reports. Data are
presented in this report on a regional, state, and Class I area
specific basis that characterize the difference between baseline
conditions (2000-2004) and the first 5-year progress period (2005-
2009). In developing the progress report, Oregon also evaluated
visibility conditions in its twelve Class I areas based on the most
recent 5-year data available at the time Oregon developed the progress
report (2010-2014).
III. The EPA's Evaluation of Oregon's Progress Report
This section describes the contents of Oregon's progress report and
the EPA's evaluation of the report, as well as the EPA's evaluation of
the determination of adequacy required by 40 CFR 51.308(h) and the
requirement for state and Federal Land Manager coordination in 40 CFR
51.308(i).
A. Status of Implementation of All Measures Included in the Regional
Haze SIP
In its progress report, Oregon provided a description of the two
key control measures that the state relied on to implement the regional
haze program: best available retrofit technology (BART), including
enforceable emission limits on BART-eligible sources, and its smoke
management program for forestry burning.\4\ Oregon included a
description of these programs which are summarized below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ The progress report also included a summary of stationary,
mobile, and area source control measures that provide supplemental
emissions reductions as part of the long-term strategy discussion in
Chapter 2.3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. BART-Level Controls
Oregon's regional haze SIP identified four BART eligible
facilities: The Portland General Electric (PGE) Boardman electric power
plant, the PGE Beaver electric power plant, the Georgia-Pacific Wauna
Mill, and the International Paper Company mill in Springfield. Of these
four facilities, only PGE Boardman was found to be subject to BART.
Accordingly, PGE Boardman installed low nitrogen oxide (NOX)
burners with a modified over-fire air system in 2011 and is meeting
BART NOX emission limitations. In early 2014, BART sulfur
dioxide (SO2) controls, consisting of a semi-dry flue gas
desulfurization system, were installed at PGE Boardman. This facility
now complies with the initial BART SO2 emission limit. A
further reduction in the SO2 emission limit is required at
PGE Boardman by 2018. Finally, the BART requirements for the PGE
Boardman plant include permanently ceasing burning coal in the main
boiler by December 31, 2020.
In addition to the BART-level controls on the PGE Boardman power
plant, three BART-eligible sources took federally enforceable emission
limits to avoid being subject to BART. Specifically, the PGE Beaver
electric power plant has six combined cycle turbines that are the BART-
eligible emission units. PGE requested daily fuel oil limits for these
turbines, as well as a requirement that all future oil contain no more
than 0.0015% sulfur. An equation was developed to determine a daily
fuel oil quantity limit that was tied to the sulfur content of the
fuel, so as not to exceed the visibility threshold level of 0.5
deciview.\5\ This plant has a Title V operating permit, which was
modified on January 21, 2009, to incorporate federally enforceable
permit limits (FEPLs), which included the above daily fuel oil limits
and sulfur content in fuel oil burned at the plant.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ Under the approved Oregon regional haze SIP, any source with
an impact of greater than 0.5 deciview in any Class I area,
including Class I areas in other states, would be subject to
additional BART analysis and BART emission limitations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Georgia-Pacific proposed a FEPL for its Wauna Mill which provided
for reduced emissions of visibility impairing pollutants in two steps.
The non-condensible gas (NCG) incinerator, which was the largest source
of SO2 emissions at the mill, was eliminated, and
restrictions on the use of fuel oil were established through FEPLs:
The use of fuel oil in the power boiler was permanently
discontinued.
Use of fuel oil in the lime kiln was discontinued until
the NCG incinerator was eliminated, after which fuel oil was again
used.
The maximum pulp production rate was limited to 1,030 tons
per day until completion of this project, after which the maximum pulp
production limit would increase to 1,350 tons per day.
This plant has a Title V operating permit, number 04-0004, which
was modified on June 18, 2009, to incorporate the FEPL requirements.
This permit was again revised on December 2, 2010, to reflect
elimination of the NCG incinerator.
The International Paper Company mill in Springfield manufactures
linerboard, primarily from wood chips and recycled old corrugated
containers. This plant has seven different BART-eligible emission
units. In order to minimize the likelihood of exceeding the 0.5
deciview visibility threshold, FEPLs were established including a
restriction on fuel oil could be burned at the facility. The plant's
Title V operating permit was modified on April 7, 2009, to incorporate
the FEPL requirements. Compliance with the condition to limit
visibility impacts is demonstrated through the use of a formula,
emission factors, and continuous emissions monitoring data.
Oregon's 2010 regional haze SIP identified a fifth facility, the
Amalgamated Sugar Company's sugar beet processing facility located in
Nyssa. This facility has potential impacts greater than 0.5 deciview
for the Eagle Cap Wilderness Area based on CALPUFF modeling of 2003-
2005 emissions. As noted in the progress report, ``The plant is
currently shutdown, and has not identified a date to resume operations.
DEQ's BART rules in 340-223-0040(3) specify that this facility must
either modify its permit by adopting an FEPL or be subject to BART,
before resuming operation. At this time, this facility is still
shutdown, and the permit has not been modified.''
2. Smoke Management
Throughout the first regional haze planning period, Oregon
implemented its Smoke Management Plan (smoke management plan). The
primary purpose of the smoke management plan is to keep smoke from
forestland prescribed burning from being carried into smoke sensitive
receptor areas, generally population centers, and to provide
opportunity for essential forestland burning while minimizing
emissions. Smoke from agricultural and forestry burning are major
contributors to Class I area visibility impairment and regional haze in
Oregon and the western United States. The pollutant species
contribution identified in the Oregon regional haze SIP showed that a
significant portion of the 20% most impaired days in all of Oregon's
Class I areas is from organic and elemental carbon, due to fire
emissions. Much of this contribution is from wildfire, which fluctuates
significantly from year to year. However, there is also a sizable
contribution from controlled burning, which is dominated by
agricultural and forestry burning.
Under Oregon Revised Statutes (ORS) 477.013, the State Forester and
ODEQ are required to protect air quality through a smoke management
plan, which was included in the SIP. Oregon Department of Forestry
(ODF) smoke management rules are listed in Oregon Administrative Rules
(OAR) 629-048-0001 to 629-048-0500, 629-043-0043, and 629-043-0041.
On November 2, 2007, ODF adopted revisions to the smoke management
[[Page 11930]]
plan to incorporate numerous changes to provide protection of air
quality and visibility in Class I areas. New visibility protection
provisions were adopted in OAR 629-048-0130 that incorporated
references to the regional haze SIP, including the Enhanced Smoke
Management Program (ESMP) criteria in section 309 of the Regional Haze
Rule. Oregon continues to evaluate the impact of prescribed fire on
Class I areas and make necessary improvements. As a result, Oregon
revised the smoke management plan again in 2014 to incorporate
practices to minimize impacts to the Kalmiopsis Wilderness and Crater
Lake National Park. The 2014 revisions to the smoke management plan
were submitted as a revision to the SIP and will be addressed in a
separate action.
B. Summary of Visibility Conditions
In addition to the evaluation of control measures, Oregon
documented in the progress report the differences between the
visibility conditions during the baseline period (2000-2004), the first
progress period (2005-2009), and the most current five year averaging
period (2010-2014) based on data that were available at the time Oregon
developed the progress report.
Table 2--Oregon Class I Area Visibility Conditions on the 20% Most and Least Impaired Day
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
20% Most impaired days 20% Least impaired days
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2005-09 2005-09
Monitor/region Oregon class I area 2000-04 First 2010-14 2000-04 First 2010-14
Baseline progress Current 2018 RPGs Baseline progress Current 2018 RPGs
period period period period
(dv) (dv) (dv) (dv) (dv) (dv) (dv) (dv)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MOHO1 Northern Cascades............... Mt. Hood Wilderness Area 14.9 13.7 13.2 13.8 2.2 1.7 1.3 2.0
THES1 Central Cascades................ Mt. Jefferson, Mt. 15.3 16.2 14.9 14.3 3.0 3.0 2.5 2.9
Washington, and Three
Sisters Wilderness
Areas.
CRLA1 Southern Cascades............... Crater Lake National 13.7 13.8 11.7 13.4 1.7 1.6 1.2 1.5
Park; Diamond Peak,
Mountain Lakes, and
Gearhart Mountain
Wilderness Areas.
KALM1 Coast Range..................... Kalmiopsis Wilderness 15.5 16.4 14.6 15.1 6.3 6.4 6.1 6.1
Area.
STAR1 Eastern Oregon.................. Strawberry Mountain and 18.6 16.2 12.5 17.5 4.5 3.6 2.8 4.1
Eagle Cap Wilderness
Areas.
HECA1 Eastern Oregon/Western Idaho.... Hells Canyon Wilderness 18.6 18.2 16.3 16.6 5.5 4.8 4.1 4.7
Area.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Based on the information in Chapter 3.2 of the progress report,
Oregon demonstrated that all Class I areas experienced improvements in
visibility for the 20% most and least impaired days between the
baseline (2000-2004) and current (2010-2014) visibility periods, as
shown in Tables 16 and 17 of the progress report, and summarized in
Table 2 above. Oregon's progress report included an analysis of
progress and impediments to progress. Oregon noted that there have been
significant improvements in visibility conditions on both the 20% most
and least impaired days, meeting the 2018 RPGs for all Oregon Class I
areas except at the THSI1 monitor, which tracks visibility conditions
for the Mt. Jefferson, Mt. Washington and Three Sisters wilderness
areas in the Oregon Central Cascades.
In the Oregon Central Cascades, progress towards the RPGs has been
slower than anticipated, and Oregon attributed this slower progress to
visibility impairment due to smoke from episodic wildfires in the area.
The visibility conditions on the 20% most impaired days in the Central
Cascades had improved by 0.4 deciviews between the baseline and current
progress periods, but had not yet met the 2018 RPG. Tables 17, 18 and
21 and Figure 20 of the report show that, even though there had been a
steady reduction in ammonium sulfate formation since 2000, indicative
of a reduction in anthropogenic contributions to visibility impairment
at this site, particulate organic aerosols has consistently remained
the dominant contributor to light extinction, with notable spikes in
the summers of 2011 and 2012. Oregon attributed this increase in
organic aerosols to wildfire smoke. The 2011 and 2012 fires potentially
impacting the THSI1 monitor included the Mother Lode (2,661 acres),
Shadow Lake (10,000 acres), High Cascades (108,154 acres), and Pole
Creek (26,000 acres) fires, as illustrated in Figure 21 of the report.
Oregon's progress report concluded that the state is making
adequate progress in improving visibility as a result of actions
identified in the regional haze SIP. The average trends for least
impaired days show improvement at every monitoring location, with all
areas currently meeting the 2018 RPGs for the 20% least impaired days.
Similarly, average trends for most impaired days show improvement at
every monitoring location, with all areas except the Central Cascades,
as described above, meeting the 2018 RPGs. The progress report also
contained a review of Oregon's visibility monitoring strategy,
concluding that the IMPROVE network continues to comply with the
monitoring requirements in the Regional Haze Rule and that no
modifications to Oregon's visibility monitoring strategy are necessary
at this time.
C. Summary of Emissions Reductions
The Oregon progress report also includes a summary of the emissions
reductions achieved throughout the state through implementation of the
control measures relied upon to achieve reasonable progress.
Specifically, Oregon identified in the progress report emissions
reductions achieved through controls on Oregon BART-eligible sources.
The Oregon progress report included the emissions reductions achieved
at the PGE Boardman Plant, the PGE Beaver Plant, the Georgia Pacific
Wauna Mill, and International Paper Mill. According to the Oregon
progress report, implementation of control measures caused significant
reductions in SO2 emissions at all four facilities, as well
as reductions in NOX and coarse particulate matter
(PM10) emissions at all facilities except the Georgia
Pacific Wauna Mill. The progress report also detailed emissions
reductions achieved as part of the smoke management program. In
particular, the progress report highlights alternatives to burning such
as biomass
[[Page 11931]]
removal, chipping, and other techniques to reduce fire hazard,
offsetting up to 13,500 tons of fine particulate emissions estimated in
2015 compared to burning.
In addition, the progress report summarized changes in emission
inventories for all major visibility impairing pollutants from point,
area, on-road mobile, off-road mobile, oil and gas, fugitive and road
dust, and anthropogenic fire source categories in the state. For these
summaries, emissions during the baseline years are represented using a
2002 inventory, which was developed with support from the WRAP for use
in the original regional haze SIP development. Differences between
inventories are represented as the difference between the 2002
inventory, and a 2008 inventory which leverages recent inventory
development work performed by the WRAP for the West-wide Jump Start Air
Quality Modeling Study (WestJumpAQMS) and Deterministic & Empirical
Assessment of Smoke's Contribution to Ozone Project
(DEASCO3) modeling projects.
Oregon's progress report noted that the emissions inventories were
complicated by the changes and enhancements that have occurred between
development of the baseline and current period emissions inventories.
Oregon stated that many of the differences between inventories are more
reflective of changes in inventory methodology, rather that changes in
actual emissions. An example is the reclassification of some off-road
mobile sources (such as some types of marine vessels and locomotives)
into the area source category in 2008, which may have contributed to
increases in area source inventory totals, but decreases in off-road
mobile totals.
Notwithstanding these differences between the 2002 and 2008
emissions inventory methodologies, estimated emissions reductions for
SO2 and NOX are summarized in Tables 3 and 4. We
note that the other visibility impairing pollutants (primary organic
aerosols, elemental carbon, fine soil, and coarse matter) also
generally declined as detailed in Chapter 3.4 of the progress
report.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ Fine soil and coarse mass decreased for the windblown dust
inventory comparisons and increased for the combined fugitive/road
dust inventories. Oregon noted that large variability in changes in
windblown dust was observed for the contiguous WRAP states, which
was likely due in large part to enhancements in dust inventory
methodology, rather than changes in actual emissions. For most
parameters, especially primary organic aerosols, volatile organic
compounds, and elemental carbon, natural fire emission inventory
estimates decreased, and anthropogenic fire estimates increased.
Oregon noted that these differences are not necessarily reflective
of changes in monitored data, as the baseline period is represented
by an average of 2000-2004 fire emissions, and the progress period
is represented only by the fires that occurred in 2008, as
referenced in section 3.3.1 of the progress report.
Table 3--Sulfur Dioxide Emissions by Category
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sulfur dioxide emissions (tons/year)
---------------------------------------------------
Difference
2002 2008 (percent change)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Anthropogenic Sources
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point....................................................... 18,493 15,918 -2,575
Area........................................................ 9,932 1,528 -8,404
On-Road Mobile.............................................. 3,446 654 -2,792
Off-Road Mobile............................................. 6,535 431 -6,104
Area Oil and Gas............................................ 0 0 0
Fugitive and Road Dust...................................... 0 0 0
Anthropogenic Fire.......................................... 1,586 1,403 -182
---------------------------------------------------
Total Anthropogenic..................................... 39,992 19,934 -20,058 (-50%)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Natural Sources
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Natural Fire................................................ 7,328 1,207 -6,121
Biogenic.................................................... 0 0 0
Wind Blown Dust............................................. 0 0 0
---------------------------------------------------
Total Natural........................................... 7,328 1,207 -6,121 (-84%)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
All Sources
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Emissions......................................... 47,320 21,140 -26,180 (-55%)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 4--Oxides of Nitrogen Emissions by Category
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Oxides of nitrogen emissions (tons/year)
---------------------------------------------------
Difference
2002 2008 (percent change)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Anthropogenic Sources
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point....................................................... 26,160 23,548 -2,612
Area........................................................ 14,740 24,121 9,381
On-Road Mobile.............................................. 111,646 98,399 -13,247
Off-Road Mobile............................................. 53,896 23,463 -30,434
Area Oil and Gas............................................ 85 0 -85
[[Page 11932]]
Fugitive and Road Dust...................................... 0 0 0
Anthropogenic Fire.......................................... 6,292 9,923 3,630
---------------------------------------------------
Total Anthropogenic..................................... 212,819 179,453 -33,366 (-16%)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Natural Sources
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Natural Fire................................................ 27,397 8,521 -18,876
Biogenic.................................................... 16,527 5,560 -10,967
Wind Blown Dust............................................. 0 0 0
---------------------------------------------------
Total Natural........................................... 43,924 14,081 -29,843 (-68%)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
All Sources
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Emissions......................................... 256,744 193,534 -63,209 (-25%)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In its progress report, Oregon concluded that the state is making
adequate progress in improving visibility as a result of actions
identified in the regional haze SIP, as well as actions taken by
adjoining states, the federal government, and compliance with
international treaty, as described in more detail in the ``Long Term
Strategy Update'' chapter of the progress report.
D. Determination of Adequacy (40 CFR 51.308(h))
In accordance with 40 CFR 51.308(h)(1), if the state determines, at
the time the five-year progress report is submitted, that the existing
implementation plan requires no further substantive revision at this
time in order to achieve established goals for visibility improvement
and emissions reductions, the state must provide to the Administrator a
negative declaration that further revision of the existing
implementation plan is not needed at this time. Within the progress
report, the State of Oregon provided a negative declaration stating
that further revision of the existing implementation plan is not
needed. The basis for the state's negative declaration is the finding
that visibility on the 20% most and least impaired days has improved,
and 2018 RPGs attained at all Oregon IMPROVE monitors, except for the
20% most impaired days at the Central Cascades monitor, which Oregon
demonstrated was due to smoke from wildfires in 2011 and 2012.
Accordingly, the EPA proposes to find that Oregon adequately addressed
the requirements in 40 CFR 51.308(h) in its determination that the
existing Oregon regional haze SIP requires no substantive revisions at
this time to achieve the established RPGs for Class I areas.
E. Consultation With Federal Land Managers (40 CFR 51.308(i))
In accordance with 40 CFR 51.308(i), the state must provide the
FLMs with an opportunity for consultation, in person and at least 60
days prior to holding any public hearings on an implementation plan (or
plan revision). The state must also include a description of how it
addressed any comments provided by the FLMs. The State of Oregon
invited the FLMs to comment on its draft progress report on February 3,
2016, for a 60-day comment period ending April 4, 2016, prior to
releasing the report for public comment. The FLM comments and Oregon's
responses are presented in Appendix D of the progress report.
The EPA proposes to find that Oregon has addressed the requirements
in 40 CFR 51.308(i). Oregon provided a 60-day period for the FLMs to
comment on the progress report, which was at least 60 days before
seeking public comments, and provided a summary of these comments and
responses to these comments in the progress report.
IV. The EPA's Proposed Action
The EPA is proposing to approve the Oregon Regional Haze Progress
Report submitted to the EPA on July 18, 2017, as meeting the applicable
requirements of the CAA and RHR, as set forth in 40 CFR 51.308(g). The
EPA proposes to find that the existing regional haze SIP is adequate to
meet the state's visibility goals and requires no substantive revision
at this time, as set forth in 40 CFR 51.308(h). We propose to find that
Oregon fulfilled the requirements in 40 CFR 51.308(i) regarding state
coordination with FLMs.
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP
submission that complies with the provisions of the CAA and applicable
Federal regulations.\7\ Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, the EPA's
role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria
of the CAA. Accordingly, this proposed action merely approves state law
as meeting Federal requirements, and does not impose additional
requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, this
proposed action:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21,
2011);
is not an Executive Order 13771 (82 FR 9339, February 2,
2017) regulatory action because actions such as SIP approvals are
exempted under Executive Order 12866;
does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described
[[Page 11933]]
in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because this rulemaking does not involve technical standards; and
does not provide the EPA with the discretionary authority
to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or
environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible
methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
In addition, this proposed action does not apply on any Indian
reservation land or in any other area where the EPA or an Indian tribe
has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of
Indian country, the rule does not have tribal implications as specified
by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Particulate
matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides,
Visibility, Volatile organic compounds.
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Dated: February 26, 2018.
Chris Hladick,
Regional Administrator, Region 10.
[FR Doc. 2018-04931 Filed 3-16-18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
