Air Plan Approval; OR; Regional Haze Plan for the Second Implementation Period, 13622-13652 [2024-03529]

Agencies

• ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 37 (Friday, February 23, 2024)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 13622-13652]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-03529]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R10-OAR-2023-0600; FRL-11593-01-R10]


Air Plan Approval; OR; Regional Haze Plan for the Second 
Implementation Period

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).


ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to 
approve the regional haze state implementation plan revision submitted 
by Oregon on April 29, 2022, as supplemented on November 22, 2023, as 
satisfying applicable requirements under the

[[Page 13623]]

Clean Air Act and the EPA's Regional Haze Rule for the program's second 
implementation period. The Oregon submission addressed the requirement 
that states must periodically revise their long-term strategies for 
making reasonable progress towards the national goal of preventing any 
future, and remedying any existing, anthropogenic impairment of 
visibility, including regional haze, in mandatory Class I Federal 
areas. The Oregon submission also addressed other applicable 
requirements for the second implementation period of the regional haze 
program. Upon final action, the Oregon submission will become part of 
the Oregon SIP.

DATES: Written comments must be received on or before March 25, 2024.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R10-
OAR-2023-0600 at https://www.regulations.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 or 
other information the disclosure of which 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 contact 
the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. 
For the full EPA public comment policy, information about confidential 
business information or multimedia submissions, and general guidance on 
making effective comments, please visit https://www.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jeff Hunt, EPA Region 10, 1200 Sixth 
Avenue, Suite 155, Seattle, WA 98101, at (206) 553-6357 or 
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, the use of ``we'' 
and ``our'' means the EPA.

Table of Contents

I. Proposed Action
II. Background and Requirements for Regional Haze Plans
    A. Regional Haze Background
    B. Roles of Agencies in Addressing Regional Haze
III. Requirements for Regional Haze Plans for the Second 
Implementation Period
    A. Identification of Class I Areas
    B. Calculations of Baseline, Current, and Natural Visibility 
Conditions; Progress to Date; and the Uniform Rate of Progress
    C. Long-Term Strategy for Regional Haze
    D. Reasonable Progress Goals
    E. Monitoring Strategy and Other State Implementation Plan 
Requirements
    F. Requirements for Periodic Reports Describing Progress Towards 
the Reasonable Progress Goals
    G. Requirements for State and Federal Land Manager Coordination
IV. The EPA's Evaluation of the Oregon Regional Haze Submission for 
the Second Implementation Period
    A. Background on the Oregon First Implementation Period SIP 
Submission
    B. The Oregon Second Implementation Period SIP Submission and 
the EPA's Evaluation
    C. Identification of Class I Areas
    D. Calculations of Baseline, Current, and Natural Visibility 
Conditions; Progress to Date; and the Uniform Rate of Progress
    E. Long-Term Strategy for Regional Haze
    a. The Oregon Long-Term Strategy
    b. The EPA's Evaluation of the Oregon Long-Term Strategy
    c. Additional Long-Term Strategy Requirements
    F. Reasonable Progress Goals
    G. Monitoring Strategy and Other Implementation Plan 
Requirements
    H. Requirements for Periodic Reports Describing Progress Towards 
the Reasonable Progress Goals
    I. Requirements for State and Federal Land Manager Coordination
V. Proposed Action
VI. Incorporation by Reference
VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. Proposed Action

    On April 29, 2022 and November 22, 2023, Oregon submitted a state 
implementation plan (SIP) revision and supplement to address regional 
haze for the second implementation period. Oregon made the submissions 
to satisfy the Clean Air Act regional haze program requirements 
pursuant to Clean Air Act sections 169A and 169B and the EPA's 
implementing regulations in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) at 40 
CFR 51.308. The EPA is proposing to find that the Oregon submissions 
meet the applicable statutory and regulatory requirements and thus we 
are proposing to approve the submissions into the SIP. We are also 
proposing to approve, and incorporate by reference into the Oregon SIP 
at 40 CFR part 52, subpart MM, specific regulatory provisions and 
source-specific requirements included in the submissions. These 
provisions are detailed in section V. of this preamble.

II. Background and Requirements for Regional Haze Plans

A. Regional Haze Background

    In the 1977 Clean Air Act Amendments, Congress created a program 
\1\ to protect visibility in the nation's mandatory class I Federal 
areas, which include certain national parks and wilderness areas.\2\ 
Congress established as a national goal the ``prevention of any future, 
and the remedying of any existing, impairment of visibility in 
mandatory class I Federal areas which impairment results from manmade 
air pollution.'' \3\ Congress further directed the EPA to promulgate 
regulations to assure reasonable progress toward meeting this national 
goal.\4\ On December 2, 1980, the EPA promulgated regulations to 
address visibility impairment in mandatory class I Federal areas 
(hereinafter referred to as ``Class I areas'') that is ``reasonably 
attributable'' to a single source or small group of sources.\5\ These 
regulations, codified at 40 CFR 51.300 through 51.307, represented the 
first phase of the EPA's efforts to address visibility impairment. In 
1990, Congress added section 169B to the Clean Air Act to further 
address visibility impairment, specifically, impairment from regional 
haze. The EPA subsequently promulgated the Regional Haze Rule on July 
1, 1999 (64 FR 35714), codified at 40 CFR 51.308.\6\ These regional 
haze regulations are a central component of the EPA's comprehensive 
visibility protection program for Class I areas.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Clean Air Act section 169A.
    \2\ Areas statutorily 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. Clean 
Air Act 162(a). There are 156 mandatory Class I areas. The list of 
areas to which the visibility protection program applies is set 
forth in 40 CFR part 81, subpart D.
    \3\ Clean Air Act section 169A(a)(1).
    \4\ Clean Air Act section 169A(a)(4).
    \5\ 45 FR 80084, December 2, 1980.
    \6\ In addition to the generally applicable regional haze 
provisions at 40 CFR 51.308, the EPA also promulgated regulations 
specific to addressing regional haze visibility impairment in Class 
I areas on the Colorado Plateau at 40 CFR 51.309. The latter 
regulations are applicable only for specific jurisdictions' regional 
haze plans submitted no later than December 17, 2007, and thus are 
not relevant here.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regional haze is visibility impairment that is produced by a 
multitude of anthropogenic sources and activities which are located 
across a broad geographic area and that emit pollutants that impair 
visibility. Visibility impairing pollutants include fine and coarse 
particulate matter (PM) (e.g., sulfates, nitrates, organic carbon, 
elemental carbon, and soil dust) and

[[Page 13624]]

their precursors (e.g., sulfur dioxide (SO2), nitrogen 
oxides (NOX), and, in some cases, volatile organic compounds 
(VOC) and ammonia (NH3)). Fine particle precursors react in 
the atmosphere to form fine particulate matter (PM2.5), 
which impairs visibility by scattering and absorbing light. Visibility 
impairment reduces the perception of clarity and color, as well as 
visible distance.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ There are several ways to measure the amount of visibility 
impairment, i.e., haze. One such measurement is the deciview, which 
is the principal metric used by the Regional Haze Rule. Under many 
circumstances, a change in one deciview will be perceived by the 
human eye to be the same on both clear and hazy days. The deciview 
is unitless. It is proportional to the logarithm of the atmospheric 
extinction of light, which is the perceived dimming of light due to 
its being scattered and absorbed as it passes through the 
atmosphere. Atmospheric light extinction (b\ext\) is a metric used 
to for expressing visibility and is measured in inverse megameters 
(Mm-1). The EPA's Guidance on Regional Haze State 
Implementation Plans for the Second Implementation Period (``2019 
Guidance'') offers the flexibility for the use of light extinction 
in certain cases. Light extinction can be simpler to use in 
calculations than deciviews, since it is not a logarithmic function. 
See, e.g., 2019 Guidance at 16, 19, https://www.epa.gov/visibility/guidance-regional-haze-state-implementation-plans-second-implementation-period. The EPA Office of Air Quality Planning and 
Standards, Research Triangle Park (August 20, 2019). The formula for 
the deciview is 10 ln (b\ext\)/10 Mm-1). 40 CFR 51.301.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To address regional haze visibility impairment, the 1999 Regional 
Haze Rule established an iterative planning process that requires both 
states in which Class I areas are located and states ``the emissions 
from which may reasonably be anticipated to cause or contribute to any 
impairment of visibility'' in a Class I area to periodically submit SIP 
revisions to address such impairment.\8\ Under the Clean Air Act, each 
SIP submission must contain ``a long-term (ten to fifteen years) 
strategy for making reasonable progress toward meeting the national 
goal.'' \9\ The initial round of SIP submissions also had to address 
the statutory requirement that certain older, larger sources of 
visibility impairing pollutants install and operate the best available 
retrofit technology (BART).\10\ States' first regional haze SIPs were 
due by December 17, 2007,\11\ with subsequent SIP submissions 
containing updated long-term strategies originally due July 31, 2018, 
and every ten years thereafter.\12\ The EPA established in the 1999 
Regional Haze Rule that all states either have Class I areas within 
their borders or ``contain sources whose emissions are reasonably 
anticipated to contribute to regional haze in a Class I area''; 
therefore, all states must submit regional haze SIPs.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ Clean Air Act section 169A(b)(2). See also 40 CFR 51.308(b), 
(f) (establishing submission dates for iterative regional haze SIP 
revisions (64 FR 35714, 35768, July 1, 1999). The Regional Haze Rule 
expresses the statutory requirement for states to submit plans 
addressing out-of-state Class I areas by providing that states must 
address visibility impairment ``in each mandatory Class I Federal 
area located outside the State that may be affected by emissions 
from within the State.'' 40 CFR 51.308(d), (f).
    \9\ Clean Air Act section 169A(b)(2)(B).
    \10\ Clean Air Act section 169A(b)(2)(A); 40 CFR 51.308(d), (e).
    \11\ 40 CFR 51.308(b).
    \12\ 64 FR 35714, 35768, July 1, 1999.
    \13\ 64 FR 35714, 35721, July 1, 1999. In addition to each of 
the fifty states, the EPA also concluded that the Virgin Islands and 
District of Columbia must also submit regional haze SIPs because 
they either contain a Class I area or contain sources whose 
emissions are reasonably anticipated to contribute regional haze in 
a Class I area. See 40 CFR 51.300(b), (d)(3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Much of the focus in the first implementation period of the 
regional haze program, which ran from 2007 through 2018, was on 
satisfying states' BART obligations. First implementation period SIPs 
were additionally required to contain long-term strategies for making 
reasonable progress toward the national visibility goal, of which BART 
is one component. The core required elements for the first 
implementation period SIPs (other than BART) are laid out in 40 CFR 
51.308(d). Those provisions required that states containing Class I 
areas establish reasonable progress goals that are measured in 
deciviews and reflect the anticipated visibility conditions at the end 
of the implementation period including from implementation of states' 
long-term strategies. The first planning period reasonable progress 
goals were required to provide for an improvement in visibility for the 
most impaired days over the period of the implementation plan and 
ensure no degradation in visibility for the least impaired days over 
the same period. In establishing the reasonable progress goals for any 
Class I area in a state, the state was required to consider four 
statutory factors: the costs of compliance, the time necessary for 
compliance, the energy and non-air quality environmental impacts of 
compliance, and the remaining useful life of any potentially affected 
sources.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ Clean Air Act section 169A(g)(1); 40 CFR 51.308(d)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    States were also required to calculate baseline (using the five 
year period of 2000-2004) and natural visibility conditions (i.e., 
visibility conditions without anthropogenic visibility impairment) for 
each Class I area, and to calculate the linear rate of progress needed 
to attain natural visibility conditions, assuming a starting point of 
baseline visibility conditions in 2004 and ending with natural 
conditions in 2064. This linear interpolation is known as the ``uniform 
rate of progress'' and is used as a tracking metric to help states 
assess the amount of progress they are making towards the national 
visibility goal over time in each Class I area.\15\ The 1999 Regional 
Haze Rule also provided that states' long-term strategies must include 
the ``enforceable emissions limitations, compliance, schedules, and 
other measures as necessary to achieve the reasonable progress goals.'' 
\16\ In establishing their long-term strategies, states are required to 
consult with other states that also contribute to visibility impairment 
in a given Class I area and include all measures necessary to obtain 
their shares of the emission reductions needed to meet the reasonable 
progress goals.\17\ The 1999 Regional Haze Rule also contains seven 
additional factors states must consider in formulating their long-term 
strategies,\18\ as well as provisions governing monitoring and other 
implementation plan requirements.\19\ Finally, the 1999 Regional Haze 
Rule required states to submit periodic progress reports--SIP revisions 
due every five years that contain information on states' implementation 
of their regional haze plans and an assessment of whether anything 
additional is needed to make reasonable progress \20\--and to consult 
with the Federal Land Manager(s) \21\ responsible for each Class I area

[[Page 13625]]

according to the requirements in Clean Air Act 169A(d) and 40 CFR 
51.308(i).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ 40 CFR 51.308(d)(1)(i)(B), (d)(2). The EPA established the 
uniform rate of progress framework in the 1999 Regional Haze Rule to 
provide ``an equitable analytical approach'' to assessing the rate 
of visibility improvement at Class I areas across the country. The 
start point for the uniform rate of progress analysis is 2004 and 
the endpoint was calculated based on the amount of visibility 
improvement that was anticipated to result from implementation of 
existing Clean Air Act programs over the period from the mid-1990s 
to approximately 2005. Assuming this rate of progress would continue 
into the future, the EPA determined that natural visibility 
conditions would be reached in 60 years, or 2064 (60 years from the 
baseline starting point of 2004). However, the EPA did not establish 
2064 as the year by which the national goal must be reached. 64 FR 
35714, 35731-32, July 1, 1999. That is, the uniform rate of progress 
and the 2064 date are not enforceable targets, but are rather tools 
that ``allow for analytical comparisons between the rate of progress 
that would be achieved by the state's chosen set of control measures 
and the [uniform rate of progress] URP.'' (82 FR 3078, 3084, January 
10, 2017).
    \16\ 40 CFR 51.308(d)(3).
    \17\ 40 CFR 51.308(d)(3)(i), (ii).
    \18\ 40 CFR 51.308(d)(3)(v).
    \19\ 40 CFR 51.308(d)(4).
    \20\ See 40 CFR 51.308(g), and (h).
    \21\ The EPA's regulations define ``Federal Land Manager'' as 
``the Secretary of the department with authority over the Federal 
Class I area (or the Secretary's designee) or, with respect to 
Roosevelt-Campobello International Park, the Chairman of the 
Roosevelt-Campobello International Park Commission.'' 40 CFR 51.301.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On January 10, 2017, the EPA promulgated revisions to the Regional 
Haze Rule that apply for the second and subsequent implementation 
periods (82 FR 3078). The 2017 rulemaking made several changes to the 
requirements for regional haze SIPs to clarify States' obligations and 
streamline certain regional haze requirements. The revisions to the 
regional haze program for the second and subsequent implementation 
periods focused on the requirement that States' SIPs contain long-term 
strategies for making reasonable progress towards the national 
visibility goal. The reasonable progress requirements as revised in the 
2017 rulemaking (referred to here as the 2017 Regional Haze Rule 
Revisions) are codified at 40 CFR 51.308(f). Among other changes, the 
2017 Regional Haze Rule Revisions adjusted the deadline for States to 
submit their second implementation period SIPs from July 31, 2018, to 
July 31, 2021, clarified the order of analysis and the relationship 
between reasonable progress goals and the long-term strategy, and 
focused on making visibility improvements on the days with the most 
anthropogenic visibility impairment, as opposed to the days with the 
most visibility impairment overall. The EPA also revised requirements 
of the visibility protection program related to periodic progress 
reports and Federal Land Manager consultation. The specific 
requirements applicable to second implementation period regional haze 
SIP submissions are addressed in detail in the following paragraphs.
    The EPA provided guidance to the states for their second 
implementation period SIP submissions in the preamble to the 2017 
Regional Haze Rule Revisions as well as in subsequent, stand-alone 
guidance documents. In August 2019, the EPA issued ``Guidance on 
Regional Haze State Implementation Plans for the Second Implementation 
Period'' (``2019 Guidance'').\22\ On July 8, 2021, the EPA issued a 
memorandum containing ``Clarifications Regarding Regional Haze State 
Implementation Plans for the Second Implementation Period'' (``2021 
Clarifications Memo'').\23\ Additionally, the EPA further clarified the 
recommended procedures for processing ambient visibility data and 
optionally adjusting the uniform rate of progress to account for 
international anthropogenic and prescribed fire impacts in two 
technical guidance documents: the December 2018 ``Technical Guidance on 
Tracking Visibility Progress for the Second Implementation Period of 
the Regional Haze Program'' (``2018 Visibility Tracking 
Guidance''),\24\ and the June 2020 ``Recommendation for the Use of 
Patched and Substituted Data and Clarification of Data Completeness for 
Tracking Visibility Progress for the Second Implementation Period of 
the Regional Haze Program'' and associated Technical Addendum (``2020 
Data Completeness Memo'').\25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ Guidance on Regional Haze State Implementation Plans for 
the Second Implementation Period. https://www.epa.gov/visibility/guidance-regional-haze-state-implementation-plans-second-implementation-period. The EPA Office of Air Quality Planning and 
Standards, Research Triangle Park (August 20, 2019).
    \23\ Clarifications Regarding Regional Haze State Implementation 
Plans for the Second Implementation Period. https://www.epa.gov/system/files/documents/2021-07/clarifications-regarding-regional-haze-state-implementation-plans-for-the-second-implementation-period.pdf. The EPA Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, 
Research Triangle Park (July 8, 2021).
    \24\ Technical Guidance on Tracking Visibility Progress for the 
Second Implementation Period of the Regional Haze Program. https://www.epa.gov/visibility/technical-guidance-tracking-visibility-progress-second-implementation-period-regional. The EPA Office of 
Air Quality Planning and Standards, Research Triangle Park. 
(December 20, 2018).
    \25\ Recommendation for the Use of Patched and Substituted Data 
and Clarification of Data Completeness for Tracking Visibility 
Progress for the Second Implementation Period of the Regional Haze 
Program. https://www.epa.gov/visibility/memo-and-technical-addendum-ambient-data-usage-and-completeness-regional-haze-program. The EPA 
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Research Triangle Park 
(June 3, 2020).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As previously explained in the 2021 Clarifications Memo, the EPA 
intends for the second implementation period of the regional haze 
program to secure meaningful reductions in visibility impairing 
pollutants that build on the significant progress states have achieved 
to date. The EPA also recognizes that analyses regarding reasonable 
progress are state-specific and that, based on states' and sources' 
individual circumstances, what constitutes reasonable reductions in 
visibility impairing pollutants will vary from state-to-state. While 
there exist many opportunities for states to leverage both ongoing and 
upcoming emission reductions under other Clean Air Act programs, the 
EPA expects states to undertake rigorous reasonable progress analyses 
that identify further opportunities to advance the national visibility 
goal consistent with the statutory and regulatory requirements.\26\ 
This is consistent with Congress's determination that a visibility 
protection program is needed in addition to the Clean Air Act's 
National Ambient Air Quality Standards and Prevention of Significant 
Deterioration programs, as further emission reductions may be necessary 
to adequately protect visibility in Class I areas throughout the 
country.\27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ See generally 2021 Clarifications Memo.
    \27\ See, e.g., H.R. Rep No. 95-294 at 205 (``In determining how 
to best remedy the growing visibility problem in these areas of 
great scenic importance, the committee realizes that as a matter of 
equity, the national ambient air quality standards cannot be revised 
to adequately protect visibility in all areas of the country.''), 
(``the mandatory class I increments of [the PSD program] do not 
adequately protect visibility in class I areas'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Roles of Agencies in Addressing Regional Haze

    Because the air pollutants and pollution affecting visibility in 
Class I areas can be transported over long distances, successful 
implementation of the regional haze program requires long-term, 
regional coordination among multiple jurisdictions and agencies that 
have responsibility for Class I areas and the emissions that impact 
visibility in those areas. In order to address regional haze, states 
need to develop strategies in coordination with one another, 
considering the effect of emissions from one jurisdiction on the air 
quality in another. Five regional planning organizations,\28\ which 
include representation from state and tribal governments, the EPA, and 
Federal Land Managers, were developed in the lead-up to the first 
implementation period to address regional haze. Regional planning 
organizations evaluate technical information to better understand how 
emissions from State and Tribal lands impact Class I areas across the 
country, pursue the development of regional strategies to reduce 
emissions of particulate matter and other pollutants leading to 
regional haze, and help states meet the consultation requirements of 
the Regional Haze Rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ Regional planning organizations are sometimes also referred 
to as ``multi-jurisdictional organizations''. For the purposes of 
this document, the terms regional planning organizations and multi-
jurisdictional organizations are synonymous.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Western Regional Air Partnership

    The Western Regional Air Partnership (WRAP) \29\ is one of the five 
regional planning organizations and functions as a voluntary 
partnership of state, Tribal, Federal, and local air agencies whose 
purpose is to understand current and evolving regional air quality 
issues in the West. There are 15 member states in the WRAP, including 
Oregon, in addition to 28 tribes and 30 local air

[[Page 13626]]

agency members.\30\ WRAP Federal partners are the EPA, National Parks 
Service, Fish and Wildlife Service, Forest Service, and Bureau of Land 
Management. The WRAP membership formed a workgroup to develop a 
planning framework for state regional haze second planning period SIPs. 
Based on emissions and monitoring data supplied by its membership, the 
WRAP produced a technical system to support regional modeling of 
visibility impacts at Class I areas across the west.\31\ The WRAP 
Technical Support System consolidated air quality monitoring data, 
meteorological and receptor modeling data analyses, emissions 
inventories and projections, and gridded air quality/visibility 
regional modeling results. The WRAP Technical Support System is 
accessible by member states and allows for the creation of maps, 
figures, and tables to export and use in state plan development, and 
maintains the original source data for verification and further 
analysis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ The WRAP website may be found at https://www.wrapair2.org.
    \30\ The WRAP membership list may be found at https://www.wrapair2.org/membership.aspx.
    \31\ Technical information may be found at https://www.wrapair2.org/RHPWG.aspx.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Requirements for Regional Haze Plans for the Second Implementation 
Period

    Under the Clean Air Act and the EPA's regulations, all 50 states, 
the District of Columbia, and the United States (U.S.) Virgin Islands 
are required to submit regional haze SIPs satisfying the applicable 
requirements for the second implementation period of the regional haze 
program by July 31, 2021. Each state's SIP must contain a long-term 
strategy for making reasonable progress toward meeting the national 
goal of remedying any existing and preventing any future anthropogenic 
visibility impairment in Class I areas.\32\ To this end, 40 CFR 
51.308(f) lays out the process by which states determine what 
constitutes their long-term strategies, with the order of the 
requirements in Sec.  51.308(f)(1) through (3) generally mirroring the 
order of the steps in the reasonable progress analysis \33\ and (f)(4) 
through (6) containing additional, related requirements. Broadly 
speaking, a state first must identify the Class I areas within the 
state and determine the Class I areas outside the state in which 
visibility may be affected by emissions from the state. These are the 
Class I areas that must be addressed in the state's long-term 
strategy.\34\ For each Class I area within its borders, a state must 
then calculate the baseline, current, and natural visibility conditions 
for that area, as well as the visibility improvement made to date and 
the uniform rate of progress.\35\ Each state having a Class I area and/
or emissions that may affect visibility in a Class I area must then 
develop a long-term strategy that includes the enforceable emission 
limitations, compliance schedules, and other measures that are 
necessary to make reasonable progress in such areas. A reasonable 
progress determination is based on applying the four factors in CAA 
section 169A(g)(1) to sources of visibility-impairing pollutants that 
the state has selected to assess for controls for the second 
implementation period. Additionally, as further explained below, the 
RHR at 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(iv) separately provides five ``additional 
factors'' \36\ that states must consider in developing their long-term 
strategies. See 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2). A state evaluates potential 
emission reduction measures for those selected sources and determines 
which are necessary to make reasonable progress. Those measures are 
then incorporated into the state's long-term strategy. After a state 
has developed its long-term strategy, it then establishes reasonable 
progress goals for each Class I area within its borders by modeling the 
visibility impacts of all reasonable progress controls at the end of 
the second implementation period, i.e., in 2028, as well as the impacts 
of other requirements of the Clean Air Act. The reasonable progress 
goals include reasonable progress controls not only for sources in the 
state in which the Class I area is located, but also for sources in 
other states that contribute to visibility impairment in that area. The 
reasonable progress goals are then compared to the baseline visibility 
conditions and the uniform rate of progress to ensure that progress is 
being made towards the statutory goal of preventing any future and 
remedying any existing anthropogenic visibility impairment in Class I 
areas.\37\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \32\ Clean Air Act section 169A(b)(2)(B).
    \33\ The EPA explained in the 2017 Regional Haze Rule Revisions 
that we were adopting new regulatory language in 40 CFR 51.308(f) 
that, unlike the structure in 51.308(d), ``tracked the actual 
planning sequence.'' (82 FR 3091, January 10, 2017).
    \34\ 40 CFR 51.308(f), (f)(2).
    \35\ 40 CFR 51.308(f)(1).
    \36\ The five ``additional factors'' for consideration in Sec.  
51.308(f)(2)(iv) are distinct from the four factors listed in CAA 
section 169A(g)(1) and 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(i) that states must 
consider and apply to sources in determining reasonable progress.
    \37\ 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2) and (3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition to satisfying the requirements at 40 CFR 51.308(f) 
related to reasonable progress, the regional haze SIP revisions for the 
second implementation period must address the requirements in 40 CFR 
51.308(g)(1) through (5) pertaining to periodic reports describing 
progress towards the reasonable progress goals, 40 CFR 51.308(f)(5), as 
well as requirements for Federal Land Manager consultation that apply 
to all visibility protection SIPs and SIP revisions.\38\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \38\ 40 CFR 51.308(i).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A state must submit its regional haze SIP and subsequent SIP 
revisions to the EPA according to the requirements applicable to all 
SIP revisions under the Clean Air Act and the EPA's regulations.\39\ 
Upon EPA approval, a SIP is enforceable by the EPA and the public under 
the Clean Air Act. If the EPA finds that a state fails to make a 
required SIP revision, or if the EPA finds that a state's SIP is 
incomplete or if disapproves the SIP, the EPA must promulgate a Federal 
implementation plan (FIP) that satisfies the applicable 
requirements.\40\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \39\ See Clean Air Act section 169(b)(2); Clean Air Act section 
110(a).
    \40\ Clean Air Act section 110(c)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

A. Identification of Class I Areas

    The first step in developing a regional haze SIP is for a state to 
determine which Class I areas, in addition to those within its borders, 
``may be affected'' by emissions from within the state. In the 1999 
Regional Haze Rule, the EPA determined that all states contribute to 
visibility impairment in at least one Class I area and explained that 
the statute and regulations lay out an ``extremely low triggering 
threshold'' for determining ``whether States should be required to 
engage in air quality planning and analysis as a prerequisite to 
determining the need for control of emissions from sources within their 
State.'' \41\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \41\ 64 FR 35714, 35720-35722, July 1, 1999.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A state must determine which Class I areas must be addressed by its 
SIP by evaluating the total emissions of visibility impairing 
pollutants from all sources within the state. While the Regional Haze 
Rule does not require this evaluation to be conducted in any particular 
manner, the EPA's 2019 Guidance provides recommendations for how such 
an assessment might be accomplished, including by, where appropriate, 
using the determinations previously made for the first implementation 
period. 2019 Guidance at 8-9. In addition, the determination of which 
Class I areas may be affected by a state's emissions is subject to the 
requirement in 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(iii) to ``document the technical 
basis, including modeling, monitoring, cost,

[[Page 13627]]

engineering, and emissions information, on which the State is relying 
to determine the emission reduction measures that are necessary to make 
reasonable progress in each mandatory Class I Federal area it 
affects.''

B. Calculations of Baseline, Current, and Natural Visibility 
Conditions; Progress to Date; and the Uniform Rate of Progress

    As part of assessing whether a SIP submission for the second 
implementation period is providing for reasonable progress towards the 
national visibility goal, the Regional Haze Rule contains requirements 
in 40 CFR 51.308(f)(1) related to tracking visibility improvement over 
time. The requirements of this section apply only to states having 
Class I areas within their borders; the required calculations must be 
made for each such Class I area. The EPA's 2018 Visibility Tracking 
Guidance \42\ provides recommendations to assist states in satisfying 
their obligations under 40 CFR 51.308(f)(1); specifically, in 
developing information on baseline, current, and natural visibility 
conditions, and in making optional adjustments to the uniform rate of 
progress to account for the impacts of international anthropogenic 
emissions and prescribed fires.\43\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \42\ The 2018 Visibility Tracking Guidance references and relies 
on parts of the 2003 Tracking Guidance: ``Guidance for Tracking 
Progress Under the Regional Haze Rule,'' which can be found at 
https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2021-03/documents/tracking.pdf.
    \43\ 82 FR 3078, 3103-05, January 10, 2017.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Regional Haze Rule requires tracking of visibility conditions 
on two sets of days: the clearest and the most impaired days. 
Visibility conditions for both sets of days are expressed as the 
average deciview index for the relevant five-year period (the period 
representing baseline or current visibility conditions). The Regional 
Haze Rule provides that the relevant sets of days for visibility 
tracking purposes are the 20% clearest (the 20% of monitored days in a 
calendar year with the lowest values of the deciview index) and 20% 
most impaired days (the 20% of monitored days in a calendar year with 
the highest amounts of anthropogenic visibility impairment).\44\ A 
state must calculate visibility conditions for both the 20% clearest 
and 20% most impaired days for the baseline period of 2000-2004 and the 
most recent five-year period for which visibility monitoring data are 
available (representing current visibility conditions).\45\ States must 
also calculate natural visibility conditions for the clearest and most 
impaired days,\46\ by estimating the conditions that would exist on 
those two sets of days absent anthropogenic visibility impairment.\47\ 
Using all these data, states must then calculate, for each Class I 
area, the amount of progress made since the baseline period (2000-2004) 
and how much improvement is left to achieve in order to reach natural 
visibility conditions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \44\ 40 CFR 51.301. This document also refers to the 20% 
clearest and 20% most anthropogenically impaired days as the 
``clearest'' and ``most impaired'' or ``most anthropogenically 
impaired'' days, respectively.
    \45\ 40 CFR 51.308(f)(1)(i), (iii).
    \46\ The Regional Haze Rule at 40 CFR 51.308(f)(1)(ii) contains 
an error related to the requirement for calculating two sets of 
natural conditions values. The rule says ``most impaired days or the 
clearest days'' where it should say ``most impaired days and 
clearest days.'' This is an error that was intended to be corrected 
in the 2017 Regional Haze Rule Revisions but did not get corrected 
in the final rule language. This is supported by the preamble text 
at 82 FR 3098, January 0, 2017: ``In the final version of 40 CFR 
51.308(f)(1)(ii), an occurrence of ``or'' has been corrected to 
``and'' to indicate that natural visibility conditions for both the 
most impaired days and the clearest days must be based on available 
monitoring information.''
    \47\ 40 CFR 51.308(f)(1)(ii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Using the data for the set of most impaired days only, states must 
plot a line between visibility conditions in the baseline period and 
natural visibility conditions for each Class I area to determine the 
uniform rate of progress--the amount of visibility improvement, 
measured in deciviews, that would need to be achieved during each 
implementation period in order to achieve natural visibility conditions 
by the end of 2064. The uniform rate of progress is used in later steps 
of the reasonable progress analysis for informational purposes and to 
provide a non-enforceable benchmark against which to assess a Class I 
area's rate of visibility improvement.\48\ Additionally, in the 2017 
Regional Haze Rule Revisions, the EPA provided states the option of 
proposing to adjust the endpoint of the uniform rate of progress to 
account for impacts of anthropogenic sources outside the U.S. and/or 
impacts of certain types of wildland prescribed fires. These 
adjustments, which must be approved by the EPA, are intended to avoid 
any perception that states should compensate for impacts from 
international anthropogenic sources and to give states the flexibility 
to determine that limiting the use of wildland-prescribed fire is not 
necessary for reasonable progress.\49\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \48\ Being on or below the uniform rate of progress is not a 
``safe harbor''; i.e., achieving the uniform rate of progress does 
not mean that a Class I area is making ``reasonable progress'' and 
does not relieve a state from using the four statutory factors to 
determine what level of control is needed to achieve such progress. 
See, e.g., 82 FR 3078, 3093, January 10, 2017.
    \49\ 82 FR 3078, 3107, January 10, 2017, footnote 116.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The EPA's 2018 Visibility Tracking Guidance can be used to help 
satisfy the 40 CFR 51.308(f)(1) requirements, including in developing 
information on baseline, current, and natural visibility conditions, 
and in making optional adjustments to the uniform rate of progress. In 
addition, the 2020 Data Completeness Memo provides recommendations on 
the data completeness language referenced in 40 CFR 51.308(f)(1)(i) and 
provides updated natural conditions estimates for each Class I area.

C. Long-Term Strategy for Regional Haze

    The core component of a regional haze SIP submission is a long-term 
strategy that addresses regional haze in each Class I area within a 
state's borders and each Class I area that may be affected by emissions 
from the state. The long-term strategy ``must include the enforceable 
emissions limitations, compliance schedules, and other measures that 
are necessary to make reasonable progress, as determined pursuant to 
(f)(2)(i) through (iv).'' \50\ The amount of progress that is 
``reasonable progress'' is based on applying the four statutory factors 
in Clean Air Act section 169A(g)(1) in an evaluation of potential 
control options for sources of visibility impairing pollutants, which 
is referred to as a ``four-factor'' analysis. The outcome of that 
analysis is the emission reduction measures that a particular source or 
group of sources needs to implement in order to make reasonable 
progress towards the national visibility goal.\51\ Emission reduction 
measures that are necessary to make reasonable progress may be either 
new, additional control measures for a source, or they may be the 
existing emission reduction measures that a source is already 
implementing.\52\ Such measures must be represented by ``enforceable 
emissions limitations, compliance schedules, and other measures'' 
(i.e., any additional compliance tools) in a state's long-term strategy 
in its SIP.\53\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \50\ 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2).
    \51\ 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(i).
    \52\ See 2019 Guidance at 43; 2021 Clarifications Memo at 8-10.
    \53\ 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section 51.308(f)(2)(i) provides the requirements for the four-
factor analysis. The first step of this analysis entails selecting the 
sources to be evaluated for emission reduction measures; to this end, 
states should

[[Page 13628]]

consider ``major and minor stationary sources or groups of sources, 
mobile sources, and area sources'' of visibility impairing pollutants 
for potential four-factor control analysis.\54\ A threshold question at 
this step is which visibility impairing pollutants will be analyzed. As 
the EPA previously explained, consistent with the first implementation 
period, the EPA generally expects that each state will analyze at least 
SO2 and NOX in selecting sources and determining 
control measures.\55\ A state that chooses not to consider at least 
these two pollutants should demonstrate why such consideration would be 
unreasonable.\56\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \54\ 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(i).
    \55\ See 2019 Guidance at 12, 2021 Clarifications Memo at 4.
    \56\ 2021 Clarifications Memo at 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    While states have the option to analyze all sources, the 2019 
Guidance explains that ``an analysis of control measures is not 
required for every source in each implementation period,'' and that 
``[s]electing a set of sources for analysis of control measures in each 
implementation period is . . . consistent with the Regional Haze Rule, 
which sets up an iterative planning process and anticipates that a 
state may not need to analyze control measures for all its sources in a 
given SIP revision.'' \57\ However, given that source selection is the 
basis of all subsequent control determinations, a reasonable source 
selection process ``should be designed and conducted to ensure that 
source selection results in a set of pollutants and sources the 
evaluation of which has the potential to meaningfully reduce their 
contributions to visibility impairment.'' \58\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \57\ 2019 Guidance at 9.
    \58\ 2021 Clarifications Memo at 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The EPA explained in the 2021 Clarifications Memo that each state 
has an obligation to submit a long-term strategy that addresses the 
regional haze visibility impairment that results from emissions from 
within that state. Thus, source selection should focus on the in-state 
contribution to visibility impairment and be designed to capture a 
meaningful portion of the state's total contribution to visibility 
impairment in Class I areas. A state should not decline to select its 
largest in-state sources on the basis that there are even larger out-
of-state contributors.\59\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \59\ Id. at 4. Similarly, in responding to comments on the 2017 
Regional Haze Rule Revisions EPA explained that ``[a] state should 
not fail to address its many relatively low-impact sources merely 
because it only has such sources and another state has even more 
low-impact sources and/or some high impact sources.'' Responses to 
Comments on Protection of Visibility: Amendments to Requirements for 
State Plans; Proposed Rule. 81 FR 26942, 26987-26988, May 4, 2016.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Thus, while states have discretion to choose any source selection 
methodology that is reasonable, whatever choices they make should be 
reasonably explained. To this end, 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(i) requires that 
a state's SIP submission include ``a description of the criteria it 
used to determine which sources or groups of sources it evaluated.'' 
The technical basis for source selection, which may include methods for 
quantifying potential visibility impacts such as emissions divided by 
distance metrics, trajectory analyses, residence time analyses, and/or 
photochemical modeling, must also be appropriately documented, as 
required by 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(iii).
    Once a state has selected the set of sources, the next step is to 
determine the emissions reduction measures for those sources that are 
necessary to make reasonable progress for the second implementation 
period.\60\ This is accomplished by considering the four factors--``the 
costs of compliance, the time necessary for compliance, and the energy 
and nonair quality environmental impacts of compliance, and the 
remaining useful life of any existing source subject to such 
requirements.'' \61\ The EPA has explained that the four-factor 
analysis is an assessment of potential emission reduction measures 
(i.e., control options) for sources; ``use of the terms `compliance' 
and `subject to such requirements' in section 169A(g)(1) strongly 
indicates that Congress intended the relevant determination to be the 
requirements with which sources would have to comply in order to 
satisfy the [Clean Air Act's] reasonable progress mandate.'' \62\ Thus, 
for each source it has selected for four-factor analysis,\63\ a state 
must consider a ``meaningful set'' of technically feasible control 
options for reducing emissions of visibility impairing pollutants.\64\ 
The 2019 Guidance provides that ``[a] state must reasonably pick and 
justify the measures that it will consider, recognizing that there is 
no statutory or regulatory requirement to consider all technically 
feasible measures or any particular measures. A range of technically 
feasible measures available to reduce emissions would be one way to 
justify a reasonable set.'' \65\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \60\ The Clean Air Act provides that, ``[i]n determining 
reasonable progress there shall be taken into consideration'' the 
four statutory factors. Clean Air Act section 169A(g)(1). However, 
in addition to four-factor analyses for selected sources, groups of 
sources, or source categories, a state may also consider additional 
emission reduction measures for inclusion in its long-term strategy, 
e.g., from other newly adopted, on-the-books, or on-the-way rules 
and measures for sources not selected for four-factor analysis for 
the second planning period.
    \61\ Clean Air Act section 169A(g)(1).
    \62\ 82 FR 3078, 3091, January 10, 2017.
    \63\ ``Each source'' or ``particular source'' is used here as 
shorthand. While a source-specific analysis is one way of applying 
the four factors, neither the statute nor the Regional Haze Rule 
requires states to evaluate individual sources. Rather, states have 
``the flexibility to conduct four-factor analyses for specific 
sources, groups of sources or even entire source categories, 
depending on state policy preferences and the specific circumstances 
of each state.'' 82 FR 3078, 3088, January 10, 2017. However, not 
all approaches to grouping sources for four-factor analysis are 
necessarily reasonable; the reasonableness of grouping sources in 
any particular instance will depend on the circumstances and the 
manner in which grouping is conducted. If it is feasible to 
establish and enforce different requirements for sources or 
subgroups of sources, and if relevant factors can be quantified for 
those sources or subgroups, then states should make a separate 
reasonable progress determination for each source or subgroup. 2021 
Clarifications Memo at 7-8.
    \64\ 82 FR 3078, 3088, January 10, 2017.
    \65\ 2019 Guidance at 29.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The EPA's 2021 Clarifications Memo provides further guidance on 
what constitutes a reasonable set of control options for consideration: 
``A reasonable four-factor analysis will consider the full range of 
potentially reasonable options for reducing emissions.'' \66\ In 
addition to add-on controls and other retrofits (i.e., new emission 
reduction measures for sources), the EPA explained that states should 
generally analyze efficiency improvements for sources' existing 
measures as control options in their four-factor analyses, as in many 
cases such improvements are reasonable given that they typically 
involve only additional operation and maintenance costs. Additionally, 
the 2021 Clarifications Memo provides that states that have assumed a 
higher emission rate than a source has achieved or could potentially 
achieve using its existing measures should also consider lower emission 
rates as potential control options. That is, a state should consider a 
source's recent actual and projected emission rates to determine if it 
could reasonably attain lower emission rates with its existing 
measures. If so, the state should analyze the lower emission rate as a 
control option for reducing emissions.\67\ The EPA's recommendations to 
analyze potential efficiency improvements and achievable lower emission 
rates apply to both sources that have been selected for four-factor 
analysis and those that have forgone a four-factor analysis on the 
basis of existing ``effective controls.'' \68\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \66\ 2021 Clarifications Memo at 7.
    \67\ Ibid.
    \68\ See 2021 Clarifications Memo at 5, 10.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    After identifying a reasonable set of potential control options for 
the sources it has selected, a state then collects

[[Page 13629]]

information on the four factors with regard to each option identified. 
The EPA has also explained that, in addition to the four statutory 
factors, states have flexibility under the Clean Air Act and Regional 
Haze Rule to reasonably consider visibility benefits as an additional 
factor alongside the four statutory factors.\69\ The 2019 Guidance 
provides recommendations for the types of information that can be used 
to characterize the four factors (with or without visibility), as well 
as ways in which states might reasonably consider and balance that 
information to determine which of the potential control options is 
necessary to make reasonable progress.\70\ The 2021 Clarifications Memo 
contains further guidance on how states can reasonably consider modeled 
visibility impacts or benefits in the context of a four-factor 
analysis.\71\ Specifically, the EPA explained that while visibility can 
reasonably be used when comparing and choosing between multiple 
reasonable control options, it should not be used to summarily reject 
controls that are reasonable given the four statutory factors.\72\ 
Ultimately, while states have discretion to reasonably weigh the 
factors and to determine what level of control is needed, Sec.  
51.308(f)(2)(i) provides that a state ``must include in its 
implementation plan a description of . . . how the four factors were 
taken into consideration in selecting the measure for inclusion in its 
long-term strategy.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \69\ See, e.g., Responses to Comments on Protection of 
Visibility: Amendments to Requirements for State Plans; Proposed 
Rule (81 FR 26942, May 4, 2016), Docket Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0531, 
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency at 186; 2019 Guidance at 36-37.
    \70\ See 2019 Guidance at 30-36.
    \71\ 2021 Clarifications Memo at 12-13, 14-15.
    \72\ 2021 Clarifications Memo at 13.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As explained above, 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(i) requires states to 
determine the emission reduction measures for sources that are 
necessary to make reasonable progress by considering the four factors. 
Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2), measures that are necessary to make 
reasonable progress towards the national visibility goal must be 
included in a state's long-term strategy and in its SIP.\73\ If the 
outcome of a four-factor analysis is a new, additional emission 
reduction measure for a source, that new measure is necessary to make 
reasonable progress towards remedying existing anthropogenic visibility 
impairment and must be included in the SIP. If the outcome of a four-
factor analysis is that no new measures are reasonable for a source, 
continued implementation of the source's existing measures is generally 
necessary to prevent future emission increases and thus to make 
reasonable progress towards the second part of the national visibility 
goal: preventing future anthropogenic visibility impairment.\74\ That 
is, when the result of a four-factor analysis is that no new measures 
are necessary to make reasonable progress, the source's existing 
measures are generally necessary to make reasonable progress and must 
be included in the SIP. However, there may be circumstances in which a 
state can demonstrate that a source's existing measures are not 
necessary to make reasonable progress. Specifically, if a state can 
demonstrate that a source will continue to implement its existing 
measures and will not increase its emission rate, it may not be 
necessary to have those measures in the long-term strategy in order to 
prevent future emission increases and future visibility impairment. The 
EPA's 2021 Clarifications Memo provides further explanation and 
guidance on how states may demonstrate that a source's existing 
measures are not necessary to make reasonable progress.\75\ If the 
state can make such a demonstration, it need not include a source's 
existing measures in the long-term strategy or its SIP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \73\ States may choose to, but are not required to, include 
measures in their long-term strategies beyond just the emission 
reduction measures that are necessary for reasonable progress. See 
2021 Clarifications Memo at 16. For example, states with smoke 
management programs may choose to submit their smoke management 
plans to the EPA for inclusion in their SIPs but are not required to 
do so. See, e.g., 82 FR 3078, 3108-3109, January 10, 2017 
(requirement to consider smoke management practices and smoke 
management programs under 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(iv) does not require 
states to adopt such practices or programs into their SIPs, although 
they may elect to do so).
    \74\ See Clean Air Act section 169A(a)(1). See also 2021 
Clarifications Memo at 8.
    \75\ See 2021 Clarifications Memo at 8-10.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As with source selection, the characterization of information on 
each of the factors is also subject to the documentation requirement in 
40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(iii). The reasonable progress analysis, including 
source selection, information gathering, characterization of the four 
statutory factors (and potentially visibility), balancing of the four 
factors, and selection of the emission reduction measures that 
represent reasonable progress, is a technically complex exercise, but 
also a flexible one that provides states with bounded discretion to 
design and implement approaches appropriate to their circumstances. 
Given this flexibility, 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(iii) plays an important 
function in requiring a state to document the technical basis for its 
decision making so that the public and the EPA can comprehend and 
evaluate the information and analysis the state relied upon to 
determine what emission reduction measures must be in place to make 
reasonable progress. The technical documentation must include the 
modeling, monitoring, cost, engineering, and emissions information on 
which the state relied to determine the measures necessary to make 
reasonable progress. This documentation requirement can be met through 
the provision of and reliance on technical analyses developed through a 
regional planning process, so long as that process and its output has 
been approved by all state participants. In addition to the explicit 
regulatory requirement to document the technical basis of their 
reasonable progress determinations, states are also subject to the 
general principle that those determinations must be reasonably moored 
to the statute.\76\ That is, a state's decisions about the emission 
reduction measures that are necessary to make reasonable progress must 
be consistent with the statutory goal of remedying existing and 
preventing future visibility impairment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \76\ See Arizona ex rel. Darwin v. U.S. EPA, 815 F.3d 519, 531 
(9th Cir. 2016); Nebraska v. U.S. EPA, 812 F.3d 662, 668 (8th Cir. 
2016); North Dakota v. EPA, 730 F.3d 750, 761 (8th Cir. 2013); 
Oklahoma v. EPA, 723 F.3d 1201, 1206, 1208-10 (10th Cir. 2013); cf. 
also National Parks Conservation Association v. EPA, 803 F.3d 151, 
165 (3d Cir. 2015); Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation 
v. EPA, 540 U.S. 461, 485, 490 (2004).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The four statutory factors (and potentially visibility) are used to 
determine what emission reduction measures for selected sources must be 
included in a state's long-term strategy for making reasonable 
progress. Additionally, the Regional Haze Rule at 40 CFR 
51.308(f)(2)(iv) separately provides five ``additional factors'' \77\ 
that states must consider in developing their long-term strategies: (1) 
emission reductions due to ongoing air pollution control programs, 
including measures to address reasonably attributable visibility 
impairment; (2) measures to reduce the impacts of construction 
activities; (3) source retirement and replacement schedules; (4) basic 
smoke management practices for prescribed fire used for agricultural 
and wildland vegetation management purposes and smoke management 
programs; and (5) the anticipated net effect on visibility due to

[[Page 13630]]

projected changes in point, area, and mobile source emissions over the 
period addressed by the long-term strategy. The 2019 Guidance provides 
that a state may satisfy this requirement by considering these 
additional factors in the process of selecting sources for four-factor 
analysis, when performing that analysis, or both, and that not every 
one of the additional factors needs to be considered at the same stage 
of the process.\78\ The EPA provided further guidance on the five 
additional factors in the 2021 Clarifications Memo, explaining that a 
state should generally not reject cost-effective and otherwise 
reasonable controls merely because there have been emission reductions 
since the first planning period owing to other ongoing air pollution 
control programs or merely because visibility is otherwise projected to 
improve at Class I areas. Additionally, states generally should not 
rely on these additional factors to summarily assert that the state has 
already made sufficient progress and, therefore, no sources need to be 
selected or no new controls are needed regardless of the outcome of 
four-factor analyses.\79\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \77\ The five ``additional factors'' for consideration in 40 CFR 
51.308(f)(2)(iv) are distinct from the four factors listed in Clean 
Air Act section 169A(g)(1) and 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(i) that states 
must consider and apply to sources in determining reasonable 
progress.
    \78\ See 2019 Guidance at 21.
    \79\ 2021 Clarifications Memo at 13. In particular, the EPA 
explained in the 2021 Clarifications Memo that states should not 
rely on the considerations in 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(iv)(A) and (E) to 
summarily assert that the state has already made sufficient progress 
and therefore does not need to achieve any additional emission 
reductions. 2021 Clarifications Memo at 13.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Because the air pollution that causes regional haze crosses state 
boundaries, 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(ii) requires a state to consult with 
other states that also have emissions that are reasonably anticipated 
to contribute to visibility impairment in a given Class I area. 
Consultation allows for each state that impacts visibility in an area 
to share whatever technical information, analyses, and control 
determinations may be necessary to develop coordinated emission 
management strategies. This coordination may be managed through inter- 
and intra-regional planning organization consultation and the 
development of regional emissions strategies; additional consultations 
between states outside of regional planning organization processes may 
also occur. If a state, pursuant to consultation, agrees that certain 
measures (e.g., a certain emission limitation) are necessary to make 
reasonable progress at a Class I area, it must include those measures 
in its SIP.\80\ Additionally, the Regional Haze Rule requires that 
states that contribute to visibility impairment at the same Class I 
area consider the emission reduction measures the other contributing 
states have identified as being necessary to make reasonable progress 
for their own sources.\81\ If a state has been asked to consider or 
adopt certain emission reduction measures, but ultimately determines 
those measures are not necessary to make reasonable progress, that 
state must document in its SIP the actions taken to resolve the 
disagreement.\82\ The EPA will consider the technical information and 
explanations presented by the submitting state and the state with which 
it disagrees when considering whether to approve the state's SIP.\83\ 
Under all circumstances, a state must document in its SIP submission 
all substantive consultations with other contributing states.\84\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \80\ 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(ii)(A).
    \81\ 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(ii)(B).
    \82\ 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(ii)(C).
    \83\ See id.; 2019 Guidance at 53.
    \84\ 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(ii)(C).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

D. Reasonable Progress Goals

    Reasonable progress goals ``measure the progress that is projected 
to be achieved by the control measures states have determined are 
necessary to make reasonable progress based on a four-factor 
analysis.'' \85\ Their primary purpose is to assist the public and the 
EPA in assessing the reasonableness of states' long-term strategies for 
making reasonable progress towards the national visibility goal.\86\ 
States in which Class I areas are located must establish two reasonable 
progress goals, both in deciviews--one representing visibility 
conditions on the clearest days and one representing visibility on the 
most anthropogenically impaired days--for each area within their 
borders.\87\ The two reasonable progress goals are intended to reflect 
the projected impacts, on the two sets of days, of the emission 
reduction measures the state with the Class I area, as well as all 
other contributing states, have included in their long-term strategies 
for the second implementation period.\88\ The reasonable progress goals 
also account for the projected impacts of implementing other Clean Air 
Act requirements, including non-SIP based requirements. Because 
reasonable progress goals are the modeled result of the measures in 
states' long-term strategies (as well as other measures required under 
the Clean Air Act), they cannot be determined before states have 
conducted their four-factor analyses and determined the control 
measures that are necessary to make reasonable progress.\89\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \85\ 82 FR 3078, 3091, January 10, 2017.
    \86\ See 40 CFR 51.308(f)(3)(iii) and (iv).
    \87\ 40 CFR 51.308(f)(3)(i).
    \88\ Reasonable progress goals are intended to reflect the 
projected impacts of the measures all contributing states include in 
their long-term strategies. However, due to the timing of analyses 
and of control determinations by other states, other on-going 
emissions changes, a particular state's reasonable progress goals 
may not reflect all control measures and emissions reductions that 
are expected to occur by the end of the implementation period. The 
2019 Guidance provides recommendations for addressing the timing of 
reasonable progress goal calculations when states are developing 
their long-term strategies on disparate schedules, as well as for 
adjusting reasonable progress goals using a post-modeling approach. 
2019 Guidance at 47-48.
    \89\ 2021 Clarifications Memo at 6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For the second implementation period, the reasonable progress goals 
are set for 2028. Reasonable progress goals are not enforceable 
targets, 40 CFR 51.308(f)(3)(iii); rather, they ``provide a way for the 
states to check the projected outcome of the [long-term strategy] 
against the goals for visibility improvement.'' \90\ While states are 
not legally obligated to achieve the visibility conditions described in 
their reasonable progress goals, 40 CFR 51.308(f)(3)(i) requires that 
``[t]he long-term strategy and the reasonable progress goals must 
provide for an improvement in visibility for the most impaired days 
since the baseline period and ensure no degradation in visibility for 
the clearest days since the baseline period.'' Thus, states are 
required to have emission reduction measures in their long-term 
strategies that are projected to achieve visibility conditions on the 
most impaired days that are better than the baseline period and shows 
no degradation on the clearest days compared to the clearest days from 
the baseline period. The baseline period for the purpose of this 
comparison is the baseline visibility condition--the annual average 
visibility condition for the period 2000-2004.\91\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \90\ 2019 Guidance at 46.
    \91\ 40 CFR 51.308(f)(1)(i), 82 FR 2078, 3097-98, January 10, 
2017.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    So that reasonable progress goals may also serve as a metric for 
assessing the amount of progress a state is making towards the national 
visibility goal, the Regional Haze Rule requires states with Class I 
areas to compare the 2028 reasonable progress goal for the most 
impaired days to the corresponding point on the uniform rate of 
progress line (representing visibility conditions in 2028 if visibility 
were to improve at a linear rate from conditions in the baseline period 
of 2000-2004 to natural visibility conditions in 2064). If the most 
impaired days reasonable progress goal in 2028 is above the uniform 
rate of progress (i.e., if visibility conditions are improving more 
slowly than the rate

[[Page 13631]]

described by the uniform rate of progress), each state that contributes 
to visibility impairment in the Class I area must demonstrate, based on 
the four-factor analysis required under 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(i), that no 
additional emission reduction measures would be reasonable to include 
in its long-term strategy.\92\ To this end, 40 CFR 51.308(f)(3)(ii) 
requires that each state contributing to visibility impairment in a 
Class I area that is projected to improve more slowly than the uniform 
rate of progress provide ``a robust demonstration, including 
documenting the criteria used to determine which sources or groups [of] 
sources were evaluated and how the four factors required by paragraph 
(f)(2)(i) were taken into consideration in selecting the measures for 
inclusion in its long-term strategy.'' The 2019 Guidance provides 
suggestions about how such a ``robust demonstration'' might be 
conducted.\93\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \92\ 40 CFR 51.308(f)(3)(ii).
    \93\ 2019 Guidance at 50-51.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The 2017 Regional Haze Rule, 2019 Guidance, and 2021 Clarifications 
Memo also explain that projecting a reasonable progress goal that is on 
or below the uniform rate of progress based on only on-the-books and/or 
on-the-way control measures (i.e., control measures already required or 
anticipated before the four-factor analysis is conducted) is not a 
``safe harbor'' from the Clean Air Act's and Regional Haze Rule's 
requirement that all states must conduct a four-factor analysis to 
determine what emission reduction measures constitute reasonable 
progress. The uniform rate of progress is a planning metric used to 
gauge the amount of progress made thus far and the amount left before 
reaching natural visibility conditions. However, the uniform rate of 
progress is not based on consideration of the four statutory factors 
and therefore cannot answer the question of whether the amount of 
progress being made in any particular implementation period is 
``reasonable progress.'' \94\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \94\ 82 FR 3078, 3093, 3099-3100, January 10, 2017; 2019 
Guidance at 22; 2021 Clarifications Memo at 15-16.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

E. Monitoring Strategy and Other State Implementation Plan Requirements

    Section 51.308(f)(6) requires states to have certain strategies and 
elements in place for assessing and reporting on visibility. Individual 
requirements under this section apply either to states with Class I 
areas within their borders, states with no Class I areas but that are 
reasonably anticipated to cause or contribute to visibility impairment 
in any Class I area, or both. A state with Class I areas within its 
borders must submit with its SIP revision a monitoring strategy for 
measuring, characterizing, and reporting regional haze visibility 
impairment that is representative of all Class I areas within the 
state. SIP revisions for such states must also provide for the 
establishment of any additional monitoring sites or equipment needed to 
assess visibility conditions in Class I areas, as well as reporting of 
all visibility monitoring data to the EPA at least annually. Compliance 
with the monitoring strategy requirement may be met through a state's 
participation in the Interagency Monitoring of Protected Visual 
Environments (IMPROVE) monitoring network, which is used to measure 
visibility impairment caused by air pollution at the 156 Class I areas 
covered by the visibility program.\95\ The IMPROVE monitoring data is 
used to determine the 20% most anthropogenically impaired and 20% 
clearest sets of days every year at each Class I area and tracks 
visibility impairment over time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \95\ 40 CFR 51.308(f)(6), (f)(6)(i), (f)(6)(iv).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    All states' SIPs must provide for procedures by which monitoring 
data and other information are used to determine the contribution of 
emissions from within the state to regional haze visibility impairment 
in affected Class I areas.\96\ Section 51.308(f)(6)(v) further requires 
that all states' SIPs provide for 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 the most recent year for which data are available and 
estimates of future projected emissions. States must also include 
commitments to update their inventories periodically. The inventories 
themselves do not need to be included as elements in the SIP and are 
not subject to EPA review as part of the EPA's evaluation of a SIP 
revision.\97\ All states' SIPs must also provide for any other 
elements, including reporting, recordkeeping, and other measures, that 
are necessary for states to assess and report on visibility.\98\ Per 
the 2019 Guidance, a state may note in its regional haze SIP that its 
compliance with the Air Emissions Reporting Rule in 40 CFR part 51, 
subpart A satisfies the requirement to provide for an emissions 
inventory for the most recent year for which data are available. To 
satisfy the requirement to provide estimates of future projected 
emissions, a state may explain in its SIP how projected emissions were 
developed for use in establishing reasonable progress goals for its own 
and nearby Class I areas.\99\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \96\ 40 CFR 51.308(f)(6)(ii), (iii).
    \97\ See ``Step 8: Additional requirements for regional haze 
SIPs'' in 2019 Regional Haze Guidance at 55.
    \98\ 40 CFR 51.308(f)(6)(vi).
    \99\ See ``Step 8: Additional requirements for regional haze 
SIPs'' in 2019 Regional Haze Guidance at 55.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Separate from the requirements related to monitoring for regional 
haze purposes under 40 CFR 51.308(f)(6), the Regional Haze Rule also 
contains a requirement at 40 CFR 51.308(f)(4) related to any additional 
monitoring that may be needed to address visibility impairment in Class 
I areas from a single source or a small group of sources. This is 
called ``reasonably attributable visibility impairment.'' \100\ Under 
this provision, if the EPA or the Federal Land Manager of an affected 
Class I area has advised a state that additional monitoring is needed 
to assess reasonably attributable visibility impairment, the state must 
include in its SIP revision for the second implementation period an 
appropriate strategy for evaluating such impairment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \100\ The EPA's visibility protection regulations define 
``reasonably attributable visibility impairment'' as ``visibility 
impairment that is caused by the emission of air pollutants from 
one, or a small number of sources.'' 40 CFR 51.301.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

F. Requirements for Periodic Reports Describing Progress Towards the 
Reasonable Progress Goals

    Section 51.308(f)(5) requires a state's regional haze SIP revision 
to address the requirements of paragraphs 40 CFR 51.308(g)(1) through 
(5) so that the plan revision due in 2021 will serve also as a progress 
report addressing the period since submission of the progress report 
for the first implementation period. The regional haze progress report 
requirement is designed to inform the public and the EPA about a 
state's implementation of its existing long-term strategy and whether 
such implementation is in fact resulting in the expected visibility 
improvement.\101\ To this end, every state's SIP revision for the 
second implementation period is required to describe the status of 
implementation of all measures included in the state's long-term 
strategy, including BART and reasonable progress emission reduction 
measures from the first implementation period, and the resulting 
emissions reductions.\102\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \101\ 81 FR 26942, 26950, May 4, 2016; 82 FR 3078, 3119, January 
10, 2017.
    \102\ 40 CFR 51.308(g)(1) and (2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A core component of the progress report requirements is an 
assessment of changes in visibility conditions on the

[[Page 13632]]

clearest and most impaired days. For second implementation period 
progress reports, 40 CFR 51.308(g)(3) requires states with Class I 
areas within their borders to first determine current visibility 
conditions for each area on the most impaired and clearest days, 40 CFR 
51.308(g)(3)(i)(B), and then to calculate the difference between those 
current conditions and baseline (2000-2004) visibility conditions in 
order to assess progress made to date.\103\ States must also assess the 
changes in visibility impairment for the most impaired and clearest 
days since they submitted their first implementation period progress 
reports.\104\ Since different states submitted their first 
implementation period progress reports at different times, the starting 
point for this assessment will vary state by state.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \103\ 40 CFR 51.308(g)(3)(ii)(B).
    \104\ 40 CFR 51.308(g)(3)(iii)(B), (f)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Similarly, states must provide analyses tracking the change in 
emissions of pollutants contributing to visibility impairment from all 
sources and activities within the state over the period since they 
submitted their first implementation period progress reports.\105\ 
Changes in emissions should be identified by the type of source or 
activity. Section 51.308(g)(5) also addresses changes in emissions 
since the period addressed by the previous progress report and requires 
states' SIP revisions to include an assessment of any significant 
changes in anthropogenic emissions within or outside the state. This 
assessment must include an explanation of whether these changes in 
emissions were anticipated and whether they have limited or impeded 
progress in reducing emissions and improving visibility relative to 
what the state projected based on its long-term strategy for the first 
implementation period.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \105\ See 40 CFR 51.308(g)(4), (f)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

G. Requirements for State and Federal Land Manager Coordination

    Clean Air Act section 169A(d) requires that before a state holds a 
public hearing on a proposed regional haze SIP revision, it must 
consult with the appropriate Federal Land Manager or Federal Land 
Managers; pursuant to that consultation, the state must include a 
summary of the Federal Land Managers' conclusions and recommendations 
in the notice to the public. Consistent with this statutory 
requirement, the Regional Haze Rule also requires that states ``provide 
the [Federal Land Manager] with an opportunity for consultation, in 
person and at a point early enough in the State's policy analyses of 
its long-term strategy emission reduction obligation so that 
information and recommendations provided by the [Federal Land Manager] 
can meaningfully inform the State's decisions on the long-term 
strategy.'' \106\ Consultation that occurs 120 days prior to any public 
hearing or public comment opportunity will be deemed ``early enough,'' 
but the Regional Haze Rule provides that in any event the opportunity 
for consultation must be provided at least 60 days before a public 
hearing or comment opportunity. This consultation must include the 
opportunity for the Federal Land Managers to discuss their assessment 
of visibility impairment in any Class I area and their recommendations 
on the development and implementation of strategies to address such 
impairment.\107\ In order for the EPA to evaluate whether Federal Land 
Manager consultation meeting the requirements of the Regional Haze Rule 
has occurred, the SIP submission should include documentation of the 
timing and content of such consultation. The SIP revision submitted to 
the EPA must also describe how the state addressed any comments 
provided by the Federal Land Managers.\108\ Finally, a SIP revision 
must provide procedures for continuing consultation between the state 
and Federal Land Managers 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.\109\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \106\ 40 CFR 51.308(i)(2).
    \107\ Ibid.
    \108\ 40 CFR 51.308(i)(3).
    \109\ 40 CFR 51.308(i)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. The EPA's Evaluation of the Oregon Regional Haze Submission for the 
Second Implementation Period

A. Background on the Oregon First Implementation Period SIP Submission

    Oregon submitted its regional haze SIP for the first implementation 
period (2008 through 2018) on December 9, 2010, as supplemented on 
February 01, 2011. The Clean Air Act required that the initial round of 
regional haze plans include, among other things, a long-term strategy 
for making reasonable progress and best available retrofit technology 
requirements for certain older stationary sources, where 
applicable.\110\ The EPA approved Oregon's first implementation period 
SIP submission in two actions published July 5, 2011 (76 FR 38997) and 
August 22, 2012 (77 FR 50611). Subsequently, on July 18, 2017, Oregon 
submitted a five-year progress report and the EPA approved the progress 
report on May 17, 2018 (83 FR 22853).\111\ In our action, we concluded 
that Oregon made adequate progress in improving visibility as a result 
of actions identified in the regional haze SIP. Specifically, based on 
2010 through 2014 data, Oregon Class I areas attained the 2018 
reasonable progress goals for improved visibility, except for one 
IMPROVE monitor highly impacted by wildfire.\112\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \110\ The requirements for regional haze SIPs for the first 
implementation period are contained in Clean Air Act section 
169A(b)(2)(B) and 40 CFR 51.308(d) and (e). See also 40 CFR 
51.308(b).
    \111\ For details, please see the progress report in the docket 
for the EPA's approval action on May 17, 2018 (83 FR 22853) at 
https://www.regulations.gov under docket number EPA-R10-OAR-2017-
0482.
    \112\ See Section III.B. Summary of Visibility Conditions of the 
proposed rule. 83 FR 11927, 11930, March 19, 2018.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. The Oregon Second Implementation Period SIP Submission and the EPA's 
Evaluation

    On April 29, 2022, and November 22, 2023, Oregon submitted 
revisions to the SIP to address its regional haze obligations for the 
second implementation period (2018 through 2028).\113\ The submissions 
may be found in the docket for this action. Oregon made its April 29, 
2022 submission available for public comment on August 27, 2021 through 
November 1, 2021 \114\ and held a public hearing on October 27, 
2021.\115\ The state received and responded to public comments and 
included the comments and comment responses in the SIP submission.\116\ 
Oregon made its November 22, 2023 submission available for public 
comment September 15, 2023 through October 21, 2023 and held a public 
hearing on October 16, 2023.\117\ The State received and responded to 
public comments and included the comments and comment responses in the 
SIP submission.\118\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \113\ Clean Air Act sections 169A and 40 CFR 51.308(f).
    \114\ Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, August 27, 2021, included 
in the docket for this action.
    \115\ Staff report for the Oregon Environmental Quality 
Commission Meeting February. 3-4, 2022, included in the docket for 
this action.
    \116\ Staff report for the Oregon Environmental Quality 
Commission Meeting February. 3-4, 2022, Summary of Public Comments 
and DEQ Responses.
    \117\ Staff report for the Oregon Environmental Quality 
Commission Meeting November 17, 2023, at page 15-16.
    \118\ Staff report for the Oregon Environmental Quality 
Commission Meeting November 17, 2023, at page 16.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The following sections of this preamble describe the Oregon SIP 
submission, including air quality

[[Page 13633]]

modeling conducted, source selection, four-factor analyses to determine 
what emission reduction measures constitute reasonable progress for the 
long-term strategy, assessment of progress made since the first 
implementation period in reducing emissions of visibility impairing 
pollutants, and the visibility improvement progress at Class I areas in 
Oregon and other states impacted by Oregon sources. This preamble also 
contains the EPA's evaluation of the Oregon SIP submission against the 
requirements of the Clean Air Act and Regional Haze Rule for the second 
implementation period of the regional haze program.

C. Identification of Class I Areas

    Section 169A(b)(2) of the Clean Air Act requires each state in 
which any Class I area is located or ``the emissions from which may 
reasonably be anticipated to cause or contribute to any impairment of 
visibility'' in a Class I area to have a plan for making reasonable 
progress toward the national visibility goal. The Regional Haze Rule 
implements this statutory requirement at 40 CFR 51.308(f), which 
provides that each state's plan ``must address regional haze in each 
mandatory Class I Federal area located within the State and in each 
mandatory Class I Federal area located outside the State that may be 
affected by emissions from within the State,'' and (f)(2), which 
requires each state's plan to include a long-term strategy that 
addresses regional haze in such Class I areas.
Oregon Class I Areas
    Oregon has 12 designated Class I areas, including Crater Lake 
National Park, managed by the National Parks Service, and 11 wilderness 
areas, managed by the U.S. Forest Service, or in the case of Hells 
Canyon Wilderness Area, managed jointly by the U.S. Forest Service and 
the Bureau of Land Management.\119\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \119\ Section 169A of the Clean Air Act was established in 1977 
to protect visibility in all wilderness areas over 5,000 acres and 
all national parks over 6,000 acres. 156 such areas were designated 
throughout the U.S.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Mt. Hood Wilderness Area
    The Mt. Hood Wilderness Area consists of 47,160 acres on the slopes 
of Mt. Hood in the northern Oregon Cascades. Wilderness elevations 
range from 3,426 meters (m) (11,237 feet (ft.)) on the summit of Mt. 
Hood down to almost 600 m (2,000 ft.) at the western boundary. It is 
almost adjacent to the Portland, Oregon metropolitan area; the 
westernmost boundary is about 20 kilometers (km) east of the Portland, 
Oregon suburb of Sandy and 40 km from the heavily populated 
metropolitan center, elevation 100 m (300 ft.). Visitation to the Mt. 
Hood Wilderness Area is approximately 50,000 visitors a year, primarily 
between May and October. Most visitors come from the Portland/Vancouver 
area that has a population of approximately 2 million.
Mt. Jefferson Wilderness Area
    The Mt. Jefferson Wilderness Area consists of 107,008 acres on the 
crest of the Cascade Range in central Oregon. Its southern boundary is 
a few km north of the northern boundary of the Mt. Washington 
Wilderness and it extends 40 to 50 km north along the Cascade crest. 
West of the crest, it consists primarily of the eastern side of the 
North Santiam River headwaters basin that connects to the Willamette 
Valley source region near Salem, Oregon, 100 km (60 miles (mi)) to the 
west. East of the crest it occupies the western slopes of the Metolius 
River drainage that connects eastern slopes with Deschutes River in 
eastern Oregon. The highest elevation is 3,200 m (10,497 ft.) at the 
summit of Mt. Jefferson in the northern part of the Wilderness. The 
lowest Wilderness elevations are near 1,000 m (3,000 ft.) along the 
western boundary in the North Santiam headwaters basin and along the 
eastern boundary in the Metolius River basin.
Mt. Washington Wilderness Area
    The Mt. Washington Wilderness Area consists of 52,516 acres on the 
crest of the Cascade Range in central Oregon. Like the Three Sisters 
Wilderness that it borders to the south, it includes headwaters 
tributaries of the McKenzie River that flow west into the Willamette 
Valley near Eugene and connect the Wilderness with that source region. 
On the east side, eastern slopes of the Cascades descend to the 
Deschutes River near Bend. The highest Wilderness elevation is 2,376 m 
(7,794 ft.) at the summit of Mt. Washington. The lowest elevations are 
near 900 m (3,000 ft.) in the upper headwaters basin of the McKenzie 
River.
Three Sisters Wilderness Area
    The Three Sisters Wilderness Area consists of 285,202 acres abreast 
the crest of the Cascade Range in central Oregon. It includes 
headwaters tributaries of the McKenzie River that flow west into the 
Willamette Valley near Eugene and connect the Wilderness with that 
source region. On the east side, streams flow east to the Deschutes 
River near Bend. The highest crest elevation is 3,158 m (10,358 ft.) at 
the summit of the South Sister. The lowest elevations are near 600 m 
(2,000 ft.) where the South Fork of the McKenzie River exits the 
Wilderness on the west boundary. This is about 500 m (1,600 ft.) above 
the Willamette Valley at Eugene 70 km (40 mi) west.
Diamond Peak Wilderness Area
    The 52,337 acre Diamond Peak Wilderness Area straddles the Cascade 
Range 50 km (30 mi) north of Crater Lake National Park. The highest 
crest elevation in the Wilderness is 2,666 m (8,744 ft.) at Diamond 
Peak, which is also the highest summit in this region of the Cascade 
Range. The lowest elevations are near 1,450 m (5,000 ft.) where streams 
exit the Wilderness on the west side. On the east side, the Wilderness 
is bordered by mountain lakes with elevations from 1,459 m to 1,693 m 
(4,786 to 5,553 ft.). The area includes headwaters of the Middle Fork 
of the Willamette River that flows to the Willamette Valley near 
Eugene, elevation 100 m (300 ft.) and 90 km (60 mi) distant. Wilderness 
elevations are thus some 1,400 m (4,600 ft.) above the Willamette 
Valley floor. East of the Cascade crest, streams flow to the Deschutes 
River in eastern Oregon.
Crater Lake National Park
    Crater Lake National Park is the only national park in Oregon. The 
park was established on May 22, 1902, and now consists of 183,315 
acres. It is located in southwestern Oregon on the crest of the Cascade 
Mountain range, 100 miles east of the Pacific Ocean. The crater's rim 
elevations range from about 900 to 1,873 ft. above lake level. The 
highest park elevation is 8,929 ft. at the peak of Mt. Scott, in the 
eastern park area. The National Park includes headwaters of the Rogue 
River that flows southwest towards the Medford/Grants Pass area, and 
Sun Creek/Wood River that flows southeast to the Klamath Falls area.
Mountain Lakes Wilderness Area
    The Mountain Lakes Wilderness Area, encompassing 23,071 acres, is a 
relatively small Class I area in southern Oregon, 50 km (30 mi) south 
of Crater Lake National Park. It consists of several peaks with a 
highest elevation of 2,502 m (8,208 ft.) at the crest of Aspen Butte. 
The lowest elevations are near 1,500 m (5,000 ft.). Primary drainages 
are Varney Creek and Moss Creek that flow into the Upper Klamath Lake, 
3 km northeast of the Wilderness boundary.
Gearhart Mountain Wilderness Area
    The Gearhart Mountain Wilderness Area consists of 22,809 acres on 
the flanks of Gearhart Mountain in south central Oregon, primarily the 
northern

[[Page 13634]]

slope and eastern drainages of Gearhart Mountain, the dominant 
topographic feature. Elevations range from near 5,900 ft. at the North 
Fork of the Sprague River in the northern Wilderness to 8,364 ft. at 
the summit of Gearhart Mountain.
Kalmiopsis Wilderness Area
    The Kalmiopsis Wilderness Area consists of 179,700 acres and is 
located in the Klamath Mountains of southwestern Oregon, part of the 
coastal temperate rainforest zone that lies between the Pacific Ocean 
and the east side of the coast ranges in northwestern U.S. and Canada. 
Its western boundary is 20 to 25 km (12 to 15 mi) from the coast. Its 
easternmost extent is about 40 km (25 mi) from the coast. Elevations 
range from about 300 m (900 ft.) on the western boundary where the 
Chetco River exits the Wilderness towards the Pacific Ocean 25 to 30 
miles further west, to 1,554 m (5,098 ft.) on Pearsoll Peak on the 
eastern Wilderness boundary. The terrain in the Wilderness is steep 
canyons and long broad ridges. The Wilderness is mostly west of the 
general crest of the coast range, thus exposed to precipitation caused 
by lifting of eastward moving maritime air, primarily during the 
winter. Precipitation ranges from 150 to 350 cm (60 to 140 inches (in)) 
annually, depending on elevation.
Strawberry Mountain Wilderness Area
    The Strawberry Mountain Wilderness Area consists of 69,350 acres in 
eastern Oregon, just east of John Day. The Wilderness comprises most of 
the Strawberry Mountain Range. The terrain is rugged, with elevations 
ranging from 1,220 m (4,000 ft.) to 2,755 m (9,038 ft.) at the summit 
of Strawberry Mountain. The Wilderness borders the upper John Day River 
valley to the north.
Eagle Cap Wilderness Area
    The Eagle Cap Wilderness Area consists of 360,275 acres in 
northeastern Oregon. The terrain is characterized by bare peaks and 
ridges and U-shaped glaciated valleys. Elevations range from 5,000 ft. 
in lower valleys to near 10,000 ft. at the highest mountain summits. 
The Lostine and Minam Rivers flow north from the center of the 
Wilderness towards Pendleton and the Columbia, 130 km northwest.
Hells Canyon Wilderness Area
    The Hells Canyon Wilderness Area consists of 214,944 acres and is 
located on the Oregon-Idaho border. The Snake River divides the 
wilderness, with 131,133 acres in Oregon, and 83,811 acres in Idaho. 
The Snake River canyon is the deepest river gorge in North America. The 
higher terrain is located on the Oregon side. Popular Oregon-side 
viewpoints are McGraw, Hat Point, and Somers Point.
Oregon Visibility Monitoring Network
    Haze species in Oregon are measured and analyzed via the 
Interagency Monitoring of Protected Visual Environments (IMPROVE) 
network.\120\ Table 1 of this preamble lists the IMPROVE stations 
representing visibility at Oregon Class I areas. Due to the remote 
nature of some of the Class I areas, several areas share a common 
IMPROVE station.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \120\ IMPROVE website at https://vista.cira.colostate.edu/Improve.

                               Table 1--Oregon IMPROVE Stations and Class I Areas
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Monitor ID                      Class I area                 Sponsor             Years operated
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MOHO...............................  Mt. Hood Wilderness........  U.S. Forest Service...  2000-present.
THSI...............................  Mt. Jefferson Wilderness...  U.S. Forest Service...  1993-present.
                                     Mt. Washington Wilderness..
                                     Three Sisters Wilderness...
CRLA...............................  Crater Lake National Park..  National Parks Service  1988-present.
                                     Diamond Peak Wilderness....
                                     Mountain Lakes Wilderness..
                                     Gearhart Mountain
                                      Wilderness.
KALM...............................  Kalmiopsis Wilderness......  U.S. Forest Service...  2000-present.
STAR...............................  Strawberry Mountain          U.S. Forest Service...  2000-present.
                                      Wilderness.
                                     Eagle Cap Wilderness.......
HECA...............................  Hells Canyon Wilderness      U.S. Forest Service...  2000-present.
                                      Area.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Identification of Class I Areas in Other States
    The Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (ODEQ) used a Q/d 
screening approach in developing a list of sources for potential four-
factor analysis, as discussed in more detail in section IV.E.a of this 
preamble. Q/d is equal to the emissions (Q) in tons per year of 
visibility-impairing pollutants (NOX, SO2, and 
particulate matter less than 10 microns in diameter (PM10)) 
divided by the distance to a Class I area (d) in kilometers. The 
resulting ratio is commonly used as a metric to assess a source's 
potential visibility impacts on a particular Class I area. Importantly, 
ODEQ used permitted emissions limits, called Plant Site Emissions 
Limits (PSELs),\121\ for a facility in 2017 to calculate Q.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \121\ PSELs are used to protect ambient air quality standards, 
prevent significant deterioration of air quality, and to ensure 
protection of visibility. Establishing such a limit is a mandatory 
step in the Oregon permitting process. A PSEL is designed to be set 
at the actual baseline emissions from a source plus approved 
emissions increases and minus required emissions reductions. This 
design is intended to maintain a more realistic emissions inventory. 
Oregon uses a fixed baseline year of 1977 or 1978 (or a prior year 
if more representative of normal operation) and factors in all 
approved emissions increases and required emissions decreases since 
baseline, to set the allowable emissions in the PSEL. Increases and 
decreases since the baseline year do not affect the baseline, but 
are included in the difference between baseline and allowable 
emissions. Oregon's PSEL program is used, in part, to implement NSR 
permitting. For major NSR, if a PSEL is calculated at a level 
greater than an established significant emission rate (SER) over the 
baseline actual emission rate, an evaluation of the air quality 
impact and major NSR permitting are required. If not, the PSEL is 
set without further review (a construction permit may also be 
required). For minor NSR (State NSR), a similar calculation is 
conducted. If the difference is greater than the SER, an air quality 
analysis is required to evaluate whether ambient air quality 
standards and increments are protected. The air quality analysis 
results may require the source to reduce the airshed impact and/or 
comply with a tighter emission limit. See 82 FR 14654, March 22, 
2017, p. 14661. Oregon's PSEL requirements are codified at OAR 340, 
Division 222. These requirements are approved into the Oregon SIP at 
40 CFR 52.1970(c). Oregon imposes the PSEL requirements via its 
major and minor new source review permitting programs at OAR 340, 
Divisions 216 and 224. Thus, PSELs are applicable requirements 
included in Title V operating permits for major stationary sources 
in Oregon.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    ODEQ determined that this approach based on permitted emissions or 
potential to emit was more rigorous and environmentally protective than 
relying

[[Page 13635]]

on actual 2017 emissions which could increase in the future. Using this 
approach, ODEQ identified Oregon facilities with a Q/d >= 5 based on 
PSELs as having potential visibility impacts on other states shown in 
table 2 of this preamble.\122\ Based on the Q/d calculation, two 
facilities, PGE Beaver/Port Westward I and Georgia Pacific-Wauna Mill 
potentially impact visibility in Mount Rainier National Park, 
Washington with Q/d values slightly higher than the most impacted 
Oregon Class I area, Mount Hood Wilderness.\123\ All other facilities 
have higher potential Q/d impacts on Oregon Class I areas than the 
respective out-of-state Class I areas.\124\ Descriptions of the 
controls imposed at the facilities listed in table 2 are contained in 
section IV.E.b. of this preamble.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \122\ While PGE Boardman's emissions in 2017 would have screened 
the facility into four-factor analysis based on the facility PSELs, 
and actual emissions, this facility closed operations in 2020. The 
closure of this facility, the last coal-fired power plant in Oregon, 
was a product of the first round of Regional Haze planning.
    \123\ Please see the EPA's evaluation of 40 CFR 
51.308(f)(3)(ii)(B) for Mount Rainier National Park under section 
IV.F of this preamble.
    \124\ April 29, 2022, Oregon SIP submission, Chapters 3.1. Q/d 
screening process and 3.3. Impact of facilities in other states on 
Oregon Class I areas.

                       Table 2--Impact of Oregon Facilities on Other States' Class I Areas
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                   Closest non-
         Facility name            Oregon Class I   Actual Q/   Q/d PSEL    Nearest Oregon   Actual Q/   Q/d PSEL
                                       area            d                    Class I area        d
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A Division of Cascades Holding  Mount Adams             2.69      56.77  Mount Hood              3.02      63.72
 US Inc.                         Wilderness, WA.                          Wilderness.
Ash Grove Cement Company......  Sawtooth                5.31      11.01  Eagle Cap              18.54      38.47
                                 Wilderness, ID.                          Wilderness.
Beaver Plant/Port Westward I    Mount Rainier NP,       3.75      40.15  Mount Hood              3.24      34.60
 Plant.                          WA.                                      Wilderness.
Biomass One, L.P..............  Marble Mountain         3.06       6.33  Mountain Lakes          4.77       9.86
                                 Wilderness, CA.                          Wilderness.
Boise Cascade-Medford.........  Marble Mountain         3.25       5.45  Mountain Lakes          4.19       7.02
                                 Wilderness, CA.                          Wilderness.
Collins Products, L.L.C.......  Lava Beds/              2.43       5.48  Mountain Lakes          4.78      10.82
                                 Schonchin                                Wilderness.
                                 Wilderness, CA.
EVRAZ Inc. NA.................  Mount Adams             2.44       8.14  Mount Hood              3.57      11.92
                                 Wilderness, WA.                          Wilderness.
Georgia Pacific-Wauna Mill....  Mount Rainier NP,      17.94      31.48  Mount Hood             16.18      28.38
                                 WA.                                      Wilderness.
Georgia-Pacific-Toledo........  Mount Adams             4.64      12.04  Three Sisters           7.83      20.33
                                 Wilderness, WA.                          Wilderness.
Halsey Pulp Mill..............  Mount Adams             3.11       8.32  Three Sisters           8.86      23.69
                                 Wilderness, WA.                          Wilderness.
Klamath Cogeneration Project..  Lava Beds/              3.66       8.69  Mountain Lakes          6.91      16.40
                                 Schonchin                                Wilderness.
                                 Wilderness, CA.
Oregon City Compressor Station  Mount Adams             1.49       5.53  Mount Hood              3.64      13.49
                                 Wilderness, WA.                          Wilderness.
Owens-Brockway Glass Container  Mount Adams             6.13      11.85  Mount Hood             10.86      21.00
 Inc.                            Wilderness, WA.                          Wilderness.
Roseburg Forest Products--      Redwood NP, CA...      10.39      16.70  Kalmiopsis             19.07      30.67
 Dillard.                                                                 Wilderness.
Willamette Falls Paper Company  Mount Adams             1.75      12.23  Mount Hood              3.79      26.46
                                 Wilderness, WA.                          Wilderness.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

D. Calculations of Baseline, Current, and Natural Visibility 
Conditions; Progress to Date; and the Uniform Rate of Progress

    Section 51.308(f)(1) requires states to determine the following for 
``each mandatory Class I Federal area located within the State:'' 
baseline visibility conditions for the most impaired and clearest days, 
natural visibility conditions for the most impaired and clearest days, 
progress to date for the most impaired and clearest days, the 
differences between current visibility conditions and natural 
visibility conditions, and the uniform rate of progress. This section 
also provides the option for states to propose adjustments to the 
uniform rate of progress line for a Class I area to account for 
visibility impacts from anthropogenic sources outside the U.S. and/or 
the impacts from wildland prescribed fires that were conducted for 
certain, specified objectives.\125\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \125\ 40 CFR 51.308(f)(1)(vi)(B).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Tracking Visibility in Oregon
    Oregon's SIP submission addresses baseline, current and natural 
visibility conditions for each of these IMPROVE stations as required by 
the 2017 Regional Haze Rule and the EPA's technical guidance on 
tracking visibility progress. ODEQ reviewed visibility data from 2000 
through 2018 and determined that current visibility at all Class I 
areas for both the clearest and most impaired days has improved since 
the baseline period. In addition, all areas have met the uniform rate 
of progress (URP) for 2018.\126\ Additionally, many Class I areas such 
as the Mt. Hood, Strawberry Mountain, Eagle Cap, and Hells Canyon 
wilderness areas are already meeting the 2028 URP for the Most Impaired 
Days (MID) based on current 2014-2018 monitoring data. Oregon did not 
choose to adjust its URP for international anthropogenic impacts or to 
account for the impacts of wildland prescribed fires resulting in a 
more stringent, environmentally protective URP glidepath as discussed 
in section IV.F. of this preamble.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \126\ April 29, 2022 Oregon SIP submission. Tables 2-6 and 2-7.
    \127\ ODEQ used data drawn from ``Availability of Modeling Data 
and Associated Technical Support Document for the EPA's Updated 2028 
Visibility Air Quality Modeling'' (EPA 2019) with corrected data as 
applicable from the June 2020 EPA Memo, ``Technical addendum 
including updated visibility data through 2018 for the memo titled 
`Recommendation for the Use of Patched and Substituted Data and 
Clarification of Data Completeness for Tracking Visibility Progress 
for the Second Implementation Period of the Regional Haze Program.''

                                           Table 3--Haze Indices (Deciviews) for Oregon IMPROVE Stations \127\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                      Current
            Monitor ID                   Class I area        Baseline            2018 URP            conditions           2028 URP             Natural
                                                            2000-2004                                2014-2018                                   2064
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                   Most Impaired Days
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MOHO..............................  Mt. Hood Wilderness          12.10  10.81.....................         9.27  9.90......................         6.59
                                     Area.
THSI..............................  Mt. Jefferson, Mt.           12.80  11.52.....................        11.28  10.60.....................         7.30
                                     Washington, and
                                     Three Sisters
                                     Wilderness Areas.

[[Page 13636]]

 
CRLA..............................  Crater Lake National          9.36  8.38......................         7.98  7.70......................         5.16
                                     Park; Diamond Peak,
                                     Mountain Lakes, and
                                     Gearhart Mountain
                                     Wilderness Areas.
KALM..............................  Kalmiopsis Wilderness        13.34  12.04.....................        11.97  11.13.....................         7.78
                                     Area.
STAR..............................  Strawberry Mountain          14.53  12.68.....................        11.19  11.35.....................         6.58
                                     and Eagle Cap
                                     Wilderness Areas.
HECA..............................  Hells Canyon                 16.51  14.19.....................        12.33  12.53.....................         6.57
                                     Wilderness Area.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                      Clearest Days
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MOHO..............................  Mt. Hood Wilderness           2.17  Not applicable............         1.39  Not applicable............         0.88
                                     Area.
THSI..............................  Mt. Jefferson, Mt.            3.04  NA........................         2.61  NA........................         1.86
                                     Washington, and
                                     Three Sisters
                                     Wilderness Areas.
CRLA..............................  Crater Lake National          1.69  NA........................         1.05  NA........................         0.10
                                     Park; Diamond Peak,
                                     Mountain Lakes, and
                                     Gearhart Mountain
                                     Wilderness Areas.
KALM..............................  Kalmiopsis Wilderness         6.27  NA........................         5.90  NA........................         3.70
                                     Area.
STAR..............................  Strawberry Mountain           4.49  NA........................         2.79  NA........................         1.48
                                     and Eagle Cap
                                     Wilderness Areas.
HECA..............................  Hells Canyon                  5.52  NA........................         4.00  NA........................         2.52
                                     Wilderness Area.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The EPA is proposing to find that Oregon has submitted a regional 
haze plan that meets the requirements of 40 CFR 51.308(f)(1) related to 
the calculations of baseline, current, and natural visibility 
conditions; progress to date; and the uniform rate of progress for the 
second implementation period.

E. Long-Term Strategy for Regional Haze

a. The Oregon Long-Term Strategy
    Each state having a Class I area within its borders or emissions 
that may affect visibility in a Class I area must develop a long-term 
strategy for making reasonable progress towards the national visibility 
goal.\128\ As explained in the background discussion in section II. of 
this preamble, reasonable progress is achieved when all states 
contributing to visibility impairment in a Class I area are 
implementing the measures determined--through application of the four 
statutory factors to sources of visibility impairing pollutants--to be 
necessary to make reasonable progress.\129\ Each state's long-term 
strategy must include the enforceable emission limitations, compliance 
schedules, and other measures that are necessary to make reasonable 
progress.\130\ All new (i.e., additional) measures that are the outcome 
of four-factor analyses are necessary to make reasonable progress and 
must be in the long-term strategy. If the outcome of a four-factor 
analysis and other measures necessary to make reasonable progress is 
that no new measures are reasonable for a source, that source's 
existing measures are necessary to make reasonable progress, unless the 
state can demonstrate that the source will continue to implement those 
measures and will not increase its emission rate. Existing measures 
that are necessary to make reasonable progress must also be in the 
long-term strategy. In developing its long-term strategies, a state 
must also consider five additional factors.\131\ As part of its 
reasonable progress determinations, the state must describe the 
criteria used to determine which sources or group of sources were 
evaluated (i.e., subjected to four-factor analysis) for the second 
implementation period and how the four factors were taken into 
consideration in selecting the emission reduction measures for 
inclusion in the long-term strategy.\132\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \128\ Clean Air Act section 169A(b)(2)(B).
    \129\ 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(i).
    \130\ 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2).
    \131\ 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(iv).
    \132\ 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(iii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The following paragraphs summarize how the Oregon submissions 
addressed the requirements of 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(i). The EPA's 
evaluation of the Oregon submission is contained in section IV.E.b. of 
this preamble. The Oregon submission includes analysis and modeling 
conducted by the State, the EPA and the WRAP, a narrative description 
of the State's long-term strategy, and enforceable emissions 
limitations embodied in State administrative orders and permits.\133\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \133\ April 29, 2022 Oregon SIP submission, Chapter 2.5.1 
Estimated future projected emissions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    States may rely on technical information developed by the regional 
planning organizations of which they are members to select sources for 
four-factor analysis and to conduct that analysis, as well as to 
satisfy the documentation requirements under 40 CFR 51.308(f). Where a 
regional planning organization has performed source selection and/or 
four-factor analyses (or considered the five additional factors in 40 
CFR 51.308(f)(2)(iv)) for its member states, those states may rely on 
the regional planning organization's analyses for the purpose of 
satisfying the requirements of 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(i) so long as the 
states have a reasonable basis to do so and all state participants in 
the regional planning organization process have approved the technical 
analyses.\134\ States may also satisfy the requirement of 40 CFR 
51.308(f)(2)(ii) to engage in interstate consultation with other states 
that have emissions that are reasonably anticipated to contribute to 
visibility impairment in a given Class I area under the auspices of 
intra- and inter-regional planning organization engagement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \134\ 40 CFR 51.308(f)(3)(iii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The WRAP is the regional planning organization to which Oregon 
belongs. The WRAP coordinated technical services, modeling, data 
management, and consulting during the second planning period. The WRAP 
developed technical tools, emission inventories, and air quality 
modeling with input and involvement from states in the region. Oregon 
has participated actively in the WRAP and used WRAP technical products 
to help develop the Oregon submissions.
    In the submissions, Oregon conducted technical analyses to identify 
sources and source categories with the largest potential to contribute 
to visibility impairment at Class I areas in Oregon and other states. 
Based on the composition of regional haze forming pollutants at the 
IMPROVE stations, ODEQ determined that the majority of U.S. 
anthropogenic contribution to

[[Page 13637]]

regional haze in Oregon Class I areas is ammonium nitrate. This varies 
seasonally and by monitor.\135\ Statewide, NOX emissions are 
primarily from mobile sources, at about 80% of the inventory, with 
another 13% of the inventory coming from fuel combustion from area and 
stationary sources.\136\ At some monitors, such as the IMPROVE stations 
in the Cascades (THIS and CRLA) and Kalmiopsis (KALM), ammonium sulfate 
is a proportionally larger contributor to regional haze formation. ODEQ 
determined the ammonium sulfate contribution is primarily from 
international anthropogenic sources and is projected to decrease by 77% 
due to new standards for international marine shipping fuels which 
became effective in 2020.\137\ Specifically, in 2010, the International 
Marine Organization (IMO) established emission standards for vessels 
operating in designated waters off the coast of North America. MARPOL 
Annex VI is codified at 33 U.S.C. 1901 et seq. Pursuant to 33 U.S.C. 
1907, it is unlawful to act in violation of the MARPOL Protocol. The 
North American Emissions Control Area (ECA) covers most coastal areas 
of the United States. Vessels operating in the area must burn low 
sulfur marine fuel, 1,000 ppm sulfur content (0.10% sulfur by weight). 
In addition, as of January 1, 2020, the IMO limited sulfur in fuel for 
ships operating outside designated ECAs to 5,000 ppm sulfur content 
(0.50% sulfur by weight). This limit represents a substantial reduction 
from the prior IMO limit of 35,000 ppm sulfur content (3.5% sulfur by 
weight). Fuel sulfur limits are codified at 40 CFR part 1043. See 84 FR 
69335, 69336 (December 18, 2019). The levels of organic mass and 
elemental carbon, likely from wildfire, prescribed burning, and 
anthropogenic and biogenic sources of volatile organic compounds vary 
at all Oregon IMPROVE stations from 2000 to 2018 but show no 
significant trend.\138\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \135\ April 29, 2022 Oregon SIP submission, Chapter 2.4 
Pollutant Components of Visibility Impairment.
    \136\ April 29, 2022 Oregon SIP submission, Chapter 2.3 
Emissions Inventory Analysis.
    \137\ International Marine Organization. 2020. A Breath of Fresh 
Air. https://wwwcdn.imo.org/localresources/en/MediaCentre/HotTopics/Documents/Sulphur%202020%20infographic%202%20page.pdf.
    \138\ April 29, 2022 Oregon SIP submission, Chapter 2.4 
Pollutant Components of Visibility Impairment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition to selecting and evaluating stationary sources for 
four-factor analysis, Oregon also used EPA emissions inventory data 
from 2017 to review emissions from mobile sources such as nonroad 
vehicles (e.g., construction, agriculture, lawn and garden, 
recreational equipment) and onroad vehicles (e.g. commercial trucks, 
passenger cars and trucks), as well as agriculture, fugitive dust, 
marine shipping, oil and gas, prescribed fires, and railroads. The 
submissions address these sectors and their potential to contribute to 
visibility impairment in Chapter 2.3. Emissions Inventory Analysis and 
Chapter 4 Long-term Strategy.
    With respect to analyzing stationary sources, Oregon used a Q/d 
methodology to select sources for evaluation under the four statutory 
factors. This methodology does not take into consideration topography, 
transport direction/pathway and dispersion, and photochemical 
processes. However, it is an adequate tool for source selection and is 
consistent with the EPA guidance. Specifically, Oregon's submission 
determined ``Q/d'' where ``Q'' is a source's emissions and ``d'' is the 
distance from the source to the nearest Class I area. Oregon identified 
permitted point sources by their Q/d values, calculated using the sum 
of all emissions of sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides and particulate 
matter less than 10 microns in diameter (as measured in tons per year), 
divided by the distance to a Class I area (measured in kilometers from 
the facility to the nearest boundary of the Class I area) for all Class 
I areas within 400 km of the source. Rather than using actual emissions 
to screen facilities in, Oregon was more conservative and used 
permitted emissions, called Plant Site Emissions Limits (PSELs) to 
effectively screen in more sources than would otherwise have been 
identified.\139\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \139\ Save for certain exceptions, PSELs are included in all Air 
Contaminant Discharge Permits (ACDP) and Title V Operating Permits 
issued to sources in Oregon. See OAR 340-222-0020. This program is 
approved into the Oregon SIP. 40 CFR 52.1970(c). Oregon establishes 
PSELs for multiple pollutants, including SO2, 
NOX, PM10, and PM2.5. Id. Sources 
are required to monitor pollutant emissions and comply with the 
PSELs. 340-222-0080. PSELs serve as a basis for, among other things, 
assuring compliance with ambient air quality standards and 
Prevention of Significant Deterioration increments. OAR 340-222-
0020. ODEQ sets PSELs based on a variety of factors; in general, 
PSELs are set at levels above the projected actual or actual 
emissions of the source. OAR 340-222-0041; 0042.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As discussed in more detail in section IV.E.b of this preamble, 
Oregon selected 32 sources for review using the Q/d screening 
methodology. Of these 32 sources, several incorporated enforceable 
emissions limits into their permits or in agreed orders resulting in 
PSELs below the screening threshold, and several had recently imposed 
controls already in place, with the remaining 23 sources conducting 
four-factor analyses. ODEQ reviewed the four-factor analyses submitted 
by the sources and found that 6 of the sources that additional controls 
were above the $10,000 cost per ton reduction threshold established by 
ODEQ. For the remaining 17 sources, ODEQ determined that additional 
controls might be cost effective and initiated a second round of review 
evaluating 43 emissions units and a total of 62 control devices. During 
this second round of review, an additional 4 sources incorporated 
facility-wide enforceable emissions limits effectively lowering PSELs 
below the screening threshold, and ODEQ negotiated permit modifications 
or agreed orders to install control devices or other emissions 
reductions at the remaining 13 facilities described in more detail in 
section IV.E.b. of this preamble.
    After reviewing the submissions, the EPA proposes to determine that 
Oregon's long-term strategy includes the enforceable emissions 
limitations, compliance schedules, and other measures necessary to make 
reasonable progress. By extension, the EPA proposes to determine that 
Oregon's selection of sources for evaluation under the four statutory 
factors was reasonable and consistent with the requirements of the RHR 
and proposes to determine that Oregon determined the controls necessary 
for reasonable progress based on a reasonable consideration of the four 
factors, as described in the evaluation below.
b. The EPA's Evaluation of the Oregon Long-Term Strategy
    The EPA is proposing to find that Oregon has satisfied the 
requirements of 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(i) related to evaluating sources 
and determining the emission reduction measures that are necessary to 
make reasonable progress by considering the four statutory factors. The 
EPA is proposing to find that Oregon has satisfied the four-factor 
analysis requirement through its evaluation and actions documented in 
the Oregon regional haze plan for the second planning period. Section 
51.308(f)(2)(i) requires states to evaluate and determine the emission 
reduction measures that are necessary to make reasonable progress by 
considering the four statutory factors to sources in a control 
analysis. As laid out in further detail in the following paragraphs of 
this preamble, the EPA is proposing to find that the Oregon submission, 
as supplemented, satisfies the requirement of 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(i). 
The emission reduction measures that are necessary to

[[Page 13638]]

make reasonable progress must be included in the long-term strategy, 
i.e., in the Oregon SIP. 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2).
Division 223 Regional Haze Rules
    On May 28, 2021, Oregon opened public comment on revisions to the 
Division 223 Regional Haze rules to update the provisions for the 
second regional haze planning period.\140\ The Oregon Environmental 
Quality Commission adopted the revisions to the Division 223 Regional 
Haze rules at its July 22-23, 2021 meeting, and the rules became 
effective July 23, 2021.\141\ A detailed redline/strikeout of the rule 
revisions is included in the docket for this action.\142\ The revisions 
removed outdated BART provisions from the first planning period, 
including source-specific requirements in Oregon Administrative Rules 
(OAR) 340-223-0040 for the Amalgamated Sugar Company which ceased 
operation on December 9, 2010, and closed permanently in September 
2016.\143\ The revisions also repealed outdated BART provisions in OAR 
340-223-0030 through 340-223-0080 for the Portland General Electric 
(PGE) coal-fired power plant in Boardman which ceased operation on 
October 15, 2020, pursuant to the requirements of the regional haze 
plan for the first implementation period. Documentation of the closure 
of the coal-fired power plant is included in the docket for this 
action.\144\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \140\ 016_4.1.2 SOS.Notice.FilingReceipt.pdf included in the 
docket for this action.
    \141\ 018_4.2.2 SOS.Filing.Receipt.DEQ_14-2021.pdf included in 
the docket for this action.
    \142\ 004_3.1 RHSIP2021.Rules_.doc included in the docket for 
this action.
    \143\ April 29, 2022 Oregon SIP submission, Chapter 2.1.1 Status 
of implementation of control measures included in the original 
regional haze SIP.
    \144\ See 200_boardman closure_25-0016-TV-01_AR_2020, 
201_boardman closure_25-0016-TV-01_AR_2021, 202_boardman 
closure_AIRS_AFS Search _US EPA, 203_2022 PSD permit_boardman 
carty_25-0016-ST-02_PM_2022_3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition to removing outdated provisions, Oregon added new rule 
provisions to implement the regional haze program for the second 
implementation period. OAR 340-223-0100 Screening Methodology for 
Sources for Round II of Regional Haze established the screening 
methodology for stationary sources in the regional haze second planning 
period. Pursuant to this rulemaking sources were required to undergo 
review if the source's Q/d was greater than 5, where Q equals the sum 
of the source's PSELs for NOX, SO2, and 
PM10.
    OAR 340-223-0110 Options for Compliance with Round II of Regional 
Haze imposed the obligation on screened sources to conduct four-factor 
analyses and established the process for imposition of controls 
determined by ODEQ to be cost effective based on those four-factor 
analyses, using a cost-effectiveness threshold of $10,000 or less per 
ton of reductions for any single or combination of regional haze 
pollutants. Specifically, OAR 340-223-0110(1) requires each source 
screened into review to submit a four-factor analysis and install 
controls determined by ODEQ to be cost effective following ODEQ's 
adjustment and review of the four-factor analysis. OAR 340-223-0110(2) 
allows alternative compliance options under an agreed order with ODEQ 
(stipulated agreement and final order or SAFO) as summarized below:
     Accept federally enforceable reductions of combined plant 
site emission limits of regional haze pollutants to bring the source's 
Q/d below 5.00. A source may take a PSEL reduction below the generic 
PSEL to achieve an overall PSEL of regional haze pollutants below a Q/d 
of 5.00. A source's Q/d will be considered to be brought below 5.00 
when Q/d is below 5.00 using the calculation in OAR 340-223-0100(2), 
except that the Q factor shall be calculated by adding the plant site 
emission limits for regional haze pollutants as stated in the 
stipulated agreement and final order;
     Install controls identified by the source in a four-factor 
analysis as cost-effective for that source for reducing regional haze 
pollutants. ODEQ must agree that the controls identified will result in 
the greatest cost-effective emissions reduction at the identified 
emissions unit and ODEQ must establish a timeline for installation of 
those controls that is the fastest practicable timeline for 
installation of the identified controls and that is no later than July 
31, 2026;
     Install controls or reduce emissions for regional haze 
pollutants that ODEQ determines, in its sole discretion, provide 
equivalent emissions reductions to controls that would be identified as 
cost effective for that source following the adjustment and review of a 
four-factor analysis. ODEQ must establish a timeline for installation 
of those controls that is the fastest practicable timeline for 
installation of the identified controls and that is no later than July 
31, 2026;
     Maintain controls that the source has already installed to 
control regional haze pollutants or maintain reduced emissions of 
regional haze pollutants that ODEQ determines, in its sole discretion, 
have provided and will continue to provide equivalent emissions 
reductions to controls that would be identified as cost effective for 
that source following adjustment and review of a four-factor analysis; 
or
     Replace an emissions unit with a new emissions unit that 
meets the emission limits and requirements of the most recent 
applicable standard in place at the time of the permitting of the new 
emissions unit. ODEQ must establish a timeline for installation of the 
new emissions unit that is the fastest practicable timeline for 
installation of the new emissions unit and that is no later than July 
31, 2031.
    OAR 340-223-0120 Four Factor Analysis established the requirements 
sources must follow in conducting the four-factor analyses consistent 
with the Clean Air Act four statutory factors and provides ODEQ with 
authority to request additional information or adjust the four-factor 
analyses for consistency. Lastly, OAR 340-223-0130 Final Orders 
Ordering Compliance with Round II of Regional Haze provides ODEQ 
unilateral order authority to address those sources that do not enter 
into a stipulated agreement and final order (SAFO) under OAR 340-223-
0110(2). OAR 340-223-0130 also outlines the contested case hearing 
process for sources that challenge the unilateral orders issued by 
ODEQ.
    We have reviewed the revisions to the Division 223 Regional Haze 
Rules and we are proposing to determine that they provide Oregon with 
adequate authority to implement the regional haze program and are 
consistent with CAA requirements and the EPA's Regional Haze Rule. ODEQ 
submitted the revised Division 223 Regional Haze Rules for 
incorporation by reference into the SIP at 40 CFR 52.1970(c) EPA 
approved regulations and statutes and requested that the EPA remove 
from the SIP the outdated source-specific BART provisions for the 
Amalgamated Sugar Company and the PGE coal-fired power plant in 
Boardman, which closed pursuant to the regional haze plan for the first 
implementation period. We are proposing to approve this request and 
incorporate by reference the submitted revised rules.
Stationary Source Screening
    Pursuant to OAR 340-223-0100 Screening Methodology for Sources for 
Round II of Regional Haze, ODEQ identified 32 facilities for analysis 
using the four factors. As described in the previous paragraphs, the 
PGE coal-fired power plant in Boardman ceased operation on October 15, 
2020, and ODEQ removed the facility from the initial list of 32 
facilities. The remaining operations onsite are known as Carty

[[Page 13639]]

Generating Station with an expected maximum Q/d of slightly over 
1.00.\145\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \145\ The Carty Generating Station is a 450 megawatt (MW), 
combined-cycle natural gas-fueled electric generating power plant, 
and includes a not-yet-constructed 50 MW solar PV electric power 
generating unit (Carty Solar Farm) on 315 acres (0.49 sq. miles). 
See https://www.oregon.gov/energy/facilities-safety/facilities/pages/cgs.aspx.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Limits To Align PSELs to the Screening Threshold
    As previously noted, ODEQ took a more inclusive approach of using 
permitted emissions limits, PSELs, to screen facilities for source 
selection. This yielded a much larger pool of facilities in the initial 
screening rather than using projected actuals as suggested by the 2019 
Guidance.\146\ OAR 340-223-0110(2)(b)(A) allows ODEQ to enter into an 
agreement with a source to ``accept federally enforceable reductions of 
combined plant site emission limits of round II regional haze 
pollutants to bring the source's Q/d below 5.00.'' As noted in ODEQ's 
April 29, 2021, SIP submission, ``if a facility's actual emissions were 
below the screening threshold and potential emissions above the 
screening threshold, ODEQ provided the source an opportunity to either 
reduce pollutant-specific PSELs or take a limit on combined 
NOX, SO2, and PM10 PSELs such that Q/d 
would be less than 5.00.'' \147\ If a source chose the option to reduce 
PSELs, OAR 340-223-0110(2)(b)(A) exempted the source from further 
control analysis. Importantly, OAR 340-223-0110(2)(b)(A) allows sources 
to reduce PSELs as a compliance option at any point in the process from 
initial screening through final agreements.\148\ To make the limits 
Federally enforceable and permanent, ODEQ submitted the SAFOs and/or 
permit conditions listed in table 7 for incorporation into the SIP in 
40 CFR 52.1970(d) EPA approved state source-specific requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \146\ 2019 Guidance at 17.
    \147\ April 29, 2022 Oregon SIP submission, Chapter 3.4. Four 
Factor Analysis.
    \148\ April 29, 2022 Oregon SIP submission, Chapter 6.6. Public 
Comments and Responses, at page 147.
    \149\ April 29, 2022 Oregon SIP submission, Chapter 3.7 
Facility-specific findings and results.
    \150\ ODEQ reviewed Kingsford Manufacturing Company which 
originally screened into analysis with a Q/d = 8.39 based on actual 
emissions as reported to the 2017 National Emissions Inventory (NEI) 
because a 2017 PSEL was not available at that time. However, in a 
letter dated May 22, 2020, ODEQ acknowledged a 2019 permit 
modification that had already lowered PSELs for NOX, 
SO2, and PM10 to a Q/d = 4.02.\150\ As part of 
the November 22, 2023 supplement, ODEQ submitted revised permit 
conditions for the Kingsford Manufacturing Company that limit the 
combined PSELs and unassigned emissions to 304 tons per year 
yielding a Q/d = 4.98.
    \151\ Alternatively, under Order 01-0038, the facility, up until 
July 2026, could opt to commit to replace units EU1 and EU2 with new 
technology by July 31, 2031, that would reduce Round 2 regional haze 
pollutants. The technology would have to meet the emission limits 
and requirements of the most recent New Source Performance Standard 
in place at the time of the permittee submitting a permit 
application for the project. PSELs for Round 2 regional haze 
pollutants for the replacement shall be no more than 201 tons/year.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The EPA proposes to determine that Oregon's source selection was 
reasonable and consistent with the requirements of 40 CFR 
51.308(f)(2)(i). ODEQ included a thorough description of its source 
selection methodology. ODEQ selected 23 sources for analysis under the 
four factors. Considering these sources' PSELs and recent actual 
emissions, ODEQ's source selection methodology targeted the sources 
with the highest potential to impair visibility at mandatory Class 1 
areas. Conversely, those sources ODEQ screened out have comparatively 
limited potential impacts on visibility, specifically, all facilities 
that accepted emission limits to screen out of analysis would have been 
screened out of analysis using a Q/d <5 of actual emissions. Thus, the 
EPA proposes to determine that Oregon's application of OAR 340-223-
0110(2)(b)(A) is a reasonable means of preventing future emissions 
growth for facilities with relatively low Q/d values based on actual 
current emissions.

                                 Table 4--Facilities Screened in Using Q/d \149\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                2017 Actual  2017 PSEL Q/
                   Facility                         Q/d            d                      Outcome
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PGE Boardman.................................         38.24        116.21  No four-factor analysis (FFA).
                                                                            Facility shut down coal-fired
                                                                            operations in 2020.
Ash Grove Cement Company.....................         18.54         38.47  No FFA. ODEQ determined 2013 consent
                                                                            decree with the EPA represented
                                                                            existing effective controls.
Klamath Energy LLC...........................          6.91         16.40  No FFA. ODEQ determined that newly
                                                                            installed controls yield a Q/d
                                                                            <5.00.
Kingsford Manufacturing Company \150\........          8.38            NA  No FFA--lowered PSEL to Q/d <5.00.
Cascades Tissue Group: A Division of Cascades          3.02         63.72  No FFA--lowered PSEL to Q/d <5.00.
 Holding US Inc.
Timber Products Co. Limited Partnership......          1.63          6.07  No FFA--lowered PSEL to Q/d <5.00.
PGE Beaver Plant/Port Westward I Plant.......          3.24         34.60  No FFA--lowered PSEL to Q/d <5.00.
Roseburg Forest Products--Riddle Plywood.....          2.10          5.29  No FFA--lowered PSEL to Q/d <5.00.
Roseburg Forest Products--Medford MDF........          2.91          8.84  No FFA--lowered PSEL to Q/d <5.00.
Boise Cascade Wood Products, LLC--Medford....          4.19          7.02  Conducted FFA--then lowered PSEL to Q/
                                                                            d <5.00.
Gas Transmission Northwest LLC--Compressor             2.33         14.13  Conducted FFA--then lowered PSEL to Q/
 Station 12.                                                                d <5.00.
JELD-WEN.....................................          2.13          6.30  Conducted FFA--then lowered PSEL to Q/
                                                                            d <5.00.
Northwest Pipeline LLC--Baker Compressor               4.02         14.81  Conducted FFA--then lowered PSEL to Q/
 Station \151\.                                                             d <5.00.
Pacific Wood Laminates, Inc..................          8.29         12.50  Conducted FFA--ODEQ determined no
                                                                            controls <$10K.
Swanson Group Mfg. LLC.......................          4.16          6.39  Conducted FFA--ODEQ determined no
                                                                            controls <$10K.
Ochoco Lumber Company........................          4.60         14.19  Conducted FFA--ODEQ determined no
                                                                            controls <$10K.
Columbia Forest Products, Inc................          4.10          7.75  Conducted FFA--ODEQ determined no
                                                                            controls <$10K.
Collins Products, L.L.C......................          4.78         10.82  Conducted FFA--ODEQ determined no
                                                                            controls <$10K.
Woodgrain Millwork LLC--Particleboard........         13.32         18.41  Conducted FFA--ODEQ determined no
                                                                            controls <$10K

[[Page 13640]]

 
Gilchrist Forest Products....................          8.42         15.74  Conducted FFA--source determined
                                                                            controls cost effective. Modified
                                                                            permit to incorporate controls.
Owens-Brockway Glass Container Inc...........         10.86         21.00  Conducted FFA--agreed order to impose
                                                                            additional controls.
Boise Cascade Wood Products, LLC--Elgin               10.08         15.04  Conducted FFA--agreed order to impose
 Complex.                                                                   additional controls.
Georgia Pacific--Wauna Mill..................         16.18         28.38  Conducted FFA--agreed order to impose
                                                                            additional controls.
Cascade Pacific Pulp, LLC--Halsey Pulp Mill..          8.86         23.69  Conducted FFA--agreed order to impose
                                                                            additional controls.
Gas Transmission Northwest LLC--Compressor             2.34         19.68  Conducted FFA--agreed order to impose
 Station 13.                                                                additional controls.
International Paper--Springfield.............         16.51         67.24  Conducted FFA--agreed order to impose
                                                                            additional controls.
Georgia-Pacific--Toledo LLC..................          7.83         20.33  Conducted FFA--agreed order to impose
                                                                            additional controls.
Northwest Pipeline LLC--Oregon City                    3.64         13.49  Conducted FFA--agreed order to impose
 Compressor Station.                                                        additional controls.
EVRAZ Inc. NA................................          3.57         11.92  Conducted FFA--agreed order to impose
                                                                            additional controls.
Biomass One, L.P.............................          4.77          9.86  Conducted FFA--agreed order to impose
                                                                            additional controls.
Roseburg Forest Products--Dillard............         19.07         30.67  Conducted FFA--agreed order to impose
                                                                            additional controls.
Willamette Falls Paper Company...............          3.79         26.46  Conducted FFA--agreed order to impose
                                                                            additional controls.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sources That Already Have Effective Emission Control Technology in 
Place
    In certain circumstances, states may properly determine that a 
particular facility already has effective emission control technology 
in place.\152\ A state that does not select a source or sources for 
this reason should explain why the decision is consistent with the 
requirement to make reasonable progress. ODEQ determined that 2 
facilities of the originally screened 32 met this criterion, Klamath 
Energy LLC and Ash Grove Cement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \152\ 2019 Guidance at 22; 2021 Clarifications Memo at 9.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In a May 28, 2020, letter from ODEQ to Klamath Energy, ODEQ 
acknowledged plans by the facility to install ultra low-NOX 
burners on the facility's combined cycle combustion turbines (emissions 
units CT1 and CT2). These planned upgrades are in addition to Selective 
Catalytic Reduction (SCR) control technology already in place at the 
CT1 and CT2 units and other associated units, CT3 through CT6. ODEQ 
estimated that the planned upgrades would reduce the facility combined 
PM10, SO2, and NOX PSELs to 122 tons 
per year, yielding a Q/d less than 5.00. Importantly, the 2020 permit 
modification did not include revised PSELs, but relied on installation 
of planned controls by January 1, 2022, as required under condition 
3.a. of the permit modification. Therefore, as part of the November 22, 
2023 supplement to the regional haze plan, ODEQ submitted relevant 
portions of the December 8, 2020, permit modification detailing 
installation and operation of the ultra low-NOX combustors, 
as well as relevant conditions from the June 12 2017, permit to include 
the existing pollution control devices for the remaining emissions 
units for incorporation by reference into the SIP. In reviewing the 
planned controls for these units, as well as the existing controls for 
other units at the facility, we are proposing to determine the facility 
has effective emission control technology in place, and those controls 
and associated emissions limits are included in the SIP.
    As discussed in Oregon's May 18, 2020, letter included in the 
docket for this action, the Ash Grove Cement, Durkee plant recently 
underwent a control analysis and ODEQ determined that no additional 
controls required through the regional haze second implementation 
period were likely to be effective or reasonable.\153\ To reach this 
determination, ODEQ reviewed information the facility sent regarding 
particulate matter emissions which are controlled by a recently 
installed baghouse system in accordance with the 2018 Portland Cement 
National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) 
revisions, the facility's Air Contaminant Discharge Permit (ACDP) from 
2017 (Permit No. 01-0029-CS-01), and the 2017 administrative amendment 
to the permit (Permit No. 01-0029-TV-01).\154\ In addition, ODEQ 
considered the enforcement actions that the EPA took on Portland Cement 
companies in conjunction with the State of Oregon and the resulting 
consent decrees to further control emissions.\155\ With respect to the 
plant in Durkee, the consent decree required installation and 
continuous operation of selective noncatalytic reduction (SNCR) at Kiln 
1, a 30-day rolling average emission limit of 2 pounds NOX 
per ton of clinker, and a 3-hour average emission limit of 0.4 pounds 
SO2 per ton of clinker. Based on the controls from the 2018 
NESHAP and the consent decree requirements, ODEQ determined that the 
facility has effective emission control technology in place. We are 
proposing to concur with that determination for this planning period. 
ODEQ submitted the October 16, 2020, Title V permit for Ash Grove 
Cement for the incorporation of relevant permit conditions in the SIP 
for the existing controls and emissions limits related to regional 
haze.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \153\ 100_haze-AshGroveCement-Durkee.pdf.
    \154\ April 29, 2022 Oregon SIP submission, Chapter 3.7.2 Ash 
Grove Cement Co, Durkee (01-0029).
    \155\ 100a_ashgrove-cd.pdf included in the docket for this 
action.

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

[[Page 13641]]

Facilities With Additional Controls
    Under OAR 340-223-0110(1) all sources subject to the requirements 
of the regional haze second implementation period, as determined in OAR 
340-223-0100 Screening Methodology for Sources for Round II of Regional 
Haze, were required to submit a four-factor analysis consistent with 
the provisions of OAR 340-223-0120 Four Factor Analysis. Specifically, 
sources were required to conduct four-factor analyses for all ``round 
II regional haze pollutants'' defined by Oregon as SO2, 
NOX, and PM10. Under 340-223-0120, ODEQ may 
adjust information in the four-factor analyses for consistency or 
adjust the four-factor analyses based on other information ODEQ 
determines to be accurate, adequate, and sufficient. ODEQ reviewed the 
four-factor analyses from the facilities and adjusted for consistency 
with basic factors such as interest rates, equipment lifetime, and 
using potential to emit (PSEL) levels instead of actual emissions in 
determining potential cost-effective controls.
    The four-factor analyses submitted to ODEQ pursuant to 340-223-
0120, with the exception of Owens-Brockway and Gilchrist Forest 
Products, indicated that additional NOX, PM10, 
and SO2 controls were either technologically infeasible or 
not cost effective. Nevertheless, Oregon reviewed these analyses and 
determined that in some cases controls may be feasible and cost 
effective. Accordingly, in letters dated January 21, 2021, ODEQ 
notified facilities based on the information provided in the four-
factor analyses submitted by the sources that additional controls may 
be reasonable at the cost effective $10,000 per ton reduction 
threshold. ODEQ provided preliminary determinations of the control 
measures that may be reasonable based on rough cost control analyses. 
Importantly, these preliminary determinations did not factor in site-
specific feasibility or other source-specific considerations. 
Therefore, the January 21, 2021, letters invited the affected 
facilities to discuss ODEQ's preliminary determination and provide 
additional information as the basis for alternative compliance through 
a SAFO between the parties under OAR 340-223-0110(2). These SAFOs and 
permit conditions imposed the new controls, emission limits, and/or 
emission monitoring at 13 facilities discussed below.
Boise Cascade Wood Products, LLC--Elgin Complex--Order 31-0006 and 
Associated Permit Conditions \156\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \156\ Permit conditions: 56. Monitoring Requirement, 
56a.Emission Calculation, Table 6 (Emission Factors) for Boilers 1 
and 2 for PM10, SO2, NOX, 59-61. 
General Monitoring Requirements, 62-65. General Recordkeeping 
Requirements, 66-70 Boiler NESHAP Recordkeeping Requirements, and 
71-75 General Reporting Requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Establishing a PSEL for SO2 effective July 31, 
2022.
     Installation of a Continuous Emission Monitoring System 
(CEMS) on Boiler 1 and Boiler 2 to measure NOX emissions by 
September 31, 2022.
     Installation of combustion improvement project or projects 
designed to achieve emissions reductions of NOX from Boiler 
1 and Boiler 2 by 15% by July 31, 2023.
Biomass One, L.P.--Order 15-0159
     Installation of CEMS on the north and south boilers by 
July 31, 2022.
     NOX optimization plan within 180 days after 
installation of the NOX CEMS.
     If Permittee is able to finalize a new power purchase 
agreement (PPA), Permittee shall notify ODEQ in writing within 14 
calendar days. Or, if no new PPA is signed, Permittee shall cease 
operation by January 1, 2027, and request cancellation of their Title V 
operating permit.
     If a new PPA is signed, then no later than 180 days after 
notifying ODEQ of the new PPA, the Permittee shall submit a complete 
application for installation of NOX reduction technology 
that includes SCR on the North Boiler and South Boiler or demonstrates 
SCR is technically infeasible or presents other unacceptable energy or 
non-air quality impact. If SCR is technically infeasible or presents 
such other unacceptable impacts, the Permittee will propose the best 
available, technically feasible, and achievable NOX 
reduction option for ODEQ's review and approval. ODEQ will notify 
Permittee and provide Permittee with a reasonable opportunity to 
comment before approving a NOX reduction option in response 
to Permittee's application.
EVRAZ Inc.--Order 26-1865
     By December 31, 2024, install low NOX burners 
on the pre-heat portions of EU-10 Reheat Furnace with a designed 
NOX emission factor of 170 pounds per million cubic feet of 
natural gas.
     During 2025, the permittee shall conduct source testing to 
verify the NOX emission factor for the EU-10 reheat furnace. 
After consultation with the permittee, ODEQ will calculate the new 
potential to emit (PTE) from EU-10 reheat furnace using the new 
NOX emission factor and adjust the permittee's 
NOX PSEL in its permit to account for the revised PTE, 
either pursuant to OAR 340-218-0200(1)(a)(A), as applicable, or upon 
permit renewal.
Georgia-Pacific--Toledo LLC--Order 21-0005
     By July 31, 2026, the permittee shall complete a 
NOX reduction project that includes the installation of low 
NOX burners, flue gas recirculation, and CEMS on the three 
boilers, EU-11, EU-13, and EU-18 in order to achieve an emissions rate 
no greater than 0.09 lb/MMBtu on a seven day rolling basis.
     Or, the permittee shall complete replacement of EU-11, EU-
13, and EU-18 with new technology no later than July 3l, 2031. PSELs 
for the replacement shall be 889 tons per year of NOX, 437 
tons per year of SO2, and 311 tons per year of 
PM10, or the PSELs of the replaced units, whichever is 
lower. Under this option, the permittee shall not operate EU-11, EU-13, 
and EU-18 after July 31, 2031.
Georgia Pacific--Wauna Mill--Order No. 04-0004, Amendment No. 04-004-A1
     NOX PSEL reductions phased from 2022 to 2026.
     By December 31, 2024, the permittee shall replace the 
existing Yankee burner with a low NOX burner achieving less 
than or equal to 0.03 pounds per million British thermal unit (lb/
MMBtu).
     For Paper Machine 6: TAD1 Burner and TAD2 Burner, and 
Paper Machine 7: TAD1 Burner and TAD 2 Burner, the permittee shall have 
a NOX emissions rate no greater than 0.06 lb/MMBtu for each 
emissions point and shall use this emission rate for calculating 
compliance with PSELs.
     By July 31, 2026, the permittee shall install low 
NOX burners, flue gas recirculation, and CEMS on the power 
boiler to achieve an emissions rate no greater than 0.09 lb/MMBtu on a 
seven day rolling basis.
International Paper Company--Springfield Mill--Order 208850 and 
Associated Permit Conditions \157\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \157\ Permit conditions: 186-189: PSEL monitoring for 
PM10, NOX and SO2, 192: 
recordkeeping requirements, and 198: PSEL compliance reporting.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Effective July 31, 2022, the permittee's combined assigned 
PSELs for the power boiler, package boiler, lime kilns and recovery 
furnace shall be 237 tons per year for SO2, 962 tons per 
year for NOX, and 177 tons per year for PM10, as 
a 12-month rolling average.

[[Page 13642]]

     On the effective date of the SAFO, the permittee agrees to 
a fuel restriction to use natural gas for the power boiler and package 
boiler, except that it may operate on ultra-low sulfur diesel for no 
more than 48 hours per year and when needed for natural gas 
curtailments.
     On the effective date of the SAFO, the permittee agrees to 
a fuel restriction to use natural gas and black liquor solids for the 
recovery furnace, except that it may operate on ultra-low sulfur diesel 
for no more than 48 hours per year and when needed for natural gas 
curtailments.
     On the effective date of the SAFO, the permittee agrees to 
a fuel restriction to use natural gas, product turpentine, and product 
methanol for the lime kilns, except that it may operate the lime kilns 
on ultra-low sulfur diesel for no more than 48 hours per year and when 
needed for natural gas curtailments.
     By December 31, 2022, the permittee shall install CEMS and 
measure the emissions of NOX from the power boiler.
     On and after January 31, 2025, International Paper shall 
meet the following emission limit: a 0.25 lb NOX/MMBtu on a 
7-day rolling average from the power boiler.
     On and after December 31, 2025, the assigned PSEL for the 
power boiler is: 179 tons per year for NOX, as a 12-month 
rolling average.
    In Oregon's November 22, 2023 supplement to the regional haze 
SIP,\158\ ODEQ provided technical background information to demonstrate 
that the newly imposed conditions under Order 208850 at International 
Paper Company Springfield Mill for the second regional haze planning 
period provide more stringent emissions control than the prior emission 
limits and methods cited by the EPA in our determination that this 
source was not subject-to-BART in the first regional haze planning 
period.\159\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \158\ Page 4.
    \159\ 75 FR 12651, March 8, 2011, at page 12660.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Owens-Brockway--Order 26-1876 and Associated Permit Conditions \160\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \160\ Permit conditions: 33. Monitor and Record: for 
PM10, SO2, and NOX, 34. General 
Testing Requirement, 35. EU4 Emission Factor Verification Testing 
Requirements: for PM10, NOX, SO2, 
36-38. General Monitoring and Recordkeeping Requirements, 39-42. 
General Recordkeeping Requirements, 43-46. General Reporting 
Requirements, and 47-48. Semi-annual and Annual Reports.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Permanent shutdown of Furnace A.
     PSEL limit for combined PM10 + NOX + 
SO2 = 274.95 tons per year which results in a Q/d = 4.99, 
consistent with OAR 340-223-0110(2)(b)(A).
Willamette Falls Paper Company--Order 03-2145 and Associated Permit 
Conditions \161\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \161\ Permit conditions: 40a-40g. Monitoring Requirement: for 
PM10, NOX, SO2, 41. Visible 
Emission Monitoring Procedure, 42. Source Testing and Emission 
Factor Verification Procedure: for PM10, NOX, 
SO2, 43-45. General Monitoring Requirements, 46-49. 
General Recordkeeping Requirements, 50-53. General Reporting 
Requirements, and 54-56. Semi-annual and Annual Reports.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Effective August 1, 2022, the permittee's PSELs shall be 
20 tons per year for PM10, 240 tons per year for 
NOX, and 5 tons per year for SO2.
     On the effective date of the SAFO, the permittee agrees to 
a restriction that the only fuel the permittee may combust in Boiler 1, 
Boiler 2 and Boiler 3 is natural gas, except for ultra-low sulfur 
diesel for no more than 48 hours per year.
Gas Transmission Northwest Compressor Station 13--OAH CASE NO. 2021-
ABC-4835 DEQ CASE NO. AQ/RH-HQ-2021-140 and Associated Permit 
Conditions \162\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \162\ Permit conditions: 24-26. General Monitoring Requirements, 
32-35. General Recordkeeping Requirements, 37-40. General Reporting 
Requirements, and 41-44. Semi-Annual and Annual Reports.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     By July 31, 2026, install and maintain SCR and an 
associated monitoring system on both Turbines 13C and 13D.
     Alternatively, by no later than July 31, 2031, replace 
Turbines 13C and 13D with new technology that meets the most recent 
permitting standards and requirements for new emission units (including 
but not limited to New Source Performance Standards) in place at the 
time of the respondent submitting a permit application for the project.
Gilchrist Forest Products--Permit 18-0005-TV-01, Addendum No. 1
     Installation of an electrostatic precipitator on boilers 
B-1 and B-2.
     A PM10 PSEL reduction from 172 tpy to 77 tpy.
Northwest Pipeline LLC--Oregon City Compressor Station--Order 03-2729, 
Amendment 03-2729-A1
     Under the SAFO, the permittee agrees to replace two 
reciprocating internal combustion engines to meet the emission limits 
and requirements of the most recent New Source Performance Standard. No 
later than July 1, 2026, ODEQ and the permittee will meet to discuss 
what permitting needs are necessary for the replacement, with 
replacement complete no later than July 31, 2031.
Cascade Pacific Pulp, LLC--Halsey Pulp Mill--Order 22-3501-A2
     By June 30, 2024, the permittee shall eliminate the use of 
#6 fuel oil.
     No later than July 31, 2031, replace power boiler #2 with 
a new emissions unit that will achieve a limit of 0.036 lbs 
NOX/MMBtu as a 30-day rolling average.
     Upon replacement of power boiler #2, limit emissions from 
power boiler #1 to no more than 27 tons of NOX per year.
Roseburg Forest Products, Dillard--Order 10-0025
     By July 31, 2022, the permittee shall install CEMS to 
measure the emissions of NOX from Boiler 1, Boiler 2 and 
Boiler 6.
     From January 31, 2023, until June 30, 2025, the permittee 
shall meet the following emission limits: 0.30 lb NOX/MMBtu 
on a 7-day rolling average at Boiler 1; 0.30 lb NOX/MMBtu on 
a 7-day rolling average at Boiler 2; 0.28 lb NOX/MMBtu on a 
7-day rolling average at Boiler 6; Or average of emissions from boiler 
1, boiler 2, and boiler 6 of 0.28 lb NOX/MMBtu (7-day 
rolling average).
     By January 31, 2024, the permittee shall notify ODEQ 
whether the permittee will comply with the emission limits below using 
boiler optimization or through installation of SNCR. If permittee 
determines SNCR is necessary to meet emission limits, SNCR shall be 
installed, permitted, and operational by June 30, 2025.
     On and after June 30, 2025, the permittee shall meet the 
following emission limits: 0.27 lb NOX/MMBtu on a 7-day 
rolling average at Boiler 1; 0.26 lb NOX/MMBtu on a 7-day 
rolling average at Boiler 2; 0.26 lb NOX/MMBtu on a 7-day 
rolling average at Boiler 6; or average of emissions from Boiler 1, 
Boiler 2, and Boiler 6 of 0.25 lb NOX/MMBtu (7-day rolling 
average).
    The EPA notes that each of the controls and emission limits 
discussed above limit emissions of one or more of the ``round II 
regional haze pollutants.'' In most cases, Oregon determined that 
NOX was the dominant visibility-impairing pollutant from the 
sources and thus imposed additional NOX controls or 
submitted the enforceable emission limitations for existing 
NOX controls. For some emission units within the stationary 
sources discussed in the previous paragraphs, Oregon did not adopt 
additional pollutant-specific controls, primarily for PM10 
and SO2. Based on a review of the four-factor analyses, 
Oregon determined that these emission units either already employ 
existing effective controls or, by virtue of design, have insignificant 
emissions.

[[Page 13643]]

    In particular, Oregon determined that PM10 emissions for 
most of the relevant emission units have been and continue to be 
controlled by multiclones, electrostatic precipitators, baghouses, or 
other feasible technology that consistently achieves >90% control 
efficiency for PM10. As a general matter, the four-factor 
analyses indicated that PM10 controls have been in place for 
many years to meet Federal NESHAP, NSPS, or Oregon SIP requirements and 
that these controls must remain in place to meet these continuing 
standards for the duration of the second planning period.\163\ 
Accordingly, Oregon determined that these existing effective controls 
were not necessary for reasonable progress for the second planning 
period.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \163\ See, e.g., 115_18-0013Collins4FA.pdf at 3-4; 
104_haze_BoiseCasecade-ElginFFA.pdf at 2-14; 107_haze-BoiseCascade-
Medford-FFA.pdf; 110_haze-CascadePacificPulp-HalseyMill-FFA.pdf at 
2-8, 3-5, 4-6-4-11, 3; 117_18-0014ColumbiaForestProducts4FA.pdf at 
11.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In other cases, Oregon determined that the nature and mode of 
operation of particular sources yielded insignificant emissions. For 
example, at the Boise Cascade Wood Products, LLC's Elgin and Medford 
Mills the sulfur content of wood derived fuel is low, and the majority 
of the sulfur content is combined with the ash products of 
combustion.\164\ Thus, Oregon either did not select these emission 
units for four-factor analysis for a given pollutant or determined that 
the existing emission limits for a given pollutant were not necessary 
for reasonable progress. Therefore, Oregon focused primarily on 
NOX and SO2, with PM10 analysis and 
limits when warranted. Accordingly, to the extent that Oregon did not 
submit the enforceable emission limitations for PM10 or 
other pollutant controls for certain emission units within a given 
source selected for four-factor analysis the EPA proposes to determine 
that Oregon's selection of emission units to review under the four 
factors is consistent with the Regional Haze Rule and that the existing 
effective controls are not necessary for reasonable progress.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \164\ See 104_haze_BoiseCasecade-ElginFFA.pdf at 2-15; 107_haze-
BoiseCascade-Medford-FFA.pdf at 2-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Facilities for Which No Controls Were Cost-Effective
    ODEQ reviewed the four-factor analyses from the facilities and 
adjusted for consistency with basic factors such as using current prime 
rate (3.25%), 30-year lifetime, and calculation of cost effective 
controls using PSEL emissions limits rather than actual emissions. 
After initial review, ODEQ ruled out control devices for which the cost 
of control was greater than $10,000 per ton or provided an emissions 
reduction (using emissions at PSEL) of less than 20 tons per year. In 
letters sent August and September 2020, ODEQ notified 6 facilities with 
the determination that the agency did not find any controls deemed cost 
effective at the $10,000/ton threshold.\165\ These facilities were 
Pacific Wood Laminates, Inc., Swanson Group Mfg. L.L.C., Ochoco Lumber 
Company, Columbia Forest Products, Inc., Collins Products, L.L.C., and 
Woodgrain Millwork L.L.C.--Particleboard. In order to ensure no future 
impairment to visibility from these facilities, ODEQ submitted Title V 
permits for these facilities to incorporate into the SIP permitting 
conditions for these existing controls relevant to the regional haze 
program. The EPA reviewed these four-factor analyses, and we propose to 
find that ODEQ's determinations for these sources are reasonable and 
consistent with 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(i) and (iii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \165\ The facility-submitted four-factor analyses and ODEQ 
response letters are included in the docket for this action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The EPA's Proposed Approval Oregon's Long-Term Strategy for Stationary 
Sources
    The EPA reviewed ODEQ's four-factor analyses, determinations of 
controls necessary for reasonable progress, and submitted SAFOs and 
permit conditions. Based on this review, the EPA proposes to determine 
that Oregon's long-term strategy meets the requirements of 40 CFR 
51.308(f)(2)(i) through (iii). Oregon submitted numerous four-factor 
analyses and demonstrated that its determination of controls necessary 
for reasonable progress were an outgrowth of its consideration of the 
four statutory factors. Notably, Oregon's $10,000 cost per ton 
threshold is one of, if not the highest, cost thresholds established by 
any state specifically for evaluating controls for the regional haze 
program. Ultimately, Oregon imposed new, substantive controls at 13 
facilities (covering over 36 emissions units) and established emissions 
limits at an additional 10 facilities with low actual emissions to 
ensure that future emissions do not rise above the screening threshold.
    The EPA acknowledges that the final control measures imposed by the 
SAFOs and permits described in the preceding paragraphs in some cases 
differ from Oregon's preliminary control determinations contained in 
ODEQ's January 21, 2021, letters. We reviewed the four-factor analyses 
and Chapter 3.7 of Oregon's regional haze SIP, Facility-Specific 
Findings and Results, which contain a brief overview of the site-
specific and feasibility concerns ODEQ considered in making final 
determinations, along with additional supporting information contained 
in the November 22, 2023, supplement.
    Based on this review, the changes from preliminary to final control 
determinations appear reasonable and consistent with the Regional Haze 
Rule. Importantly, Oregon's iterative process to identify and adopt 
technically feasible, cost-effective controls reinforces that the State 
considered the four statutory factors to determine the controls 
necessary for reasonable progress.
    Considering ODEQ's conservative screening methodology to use 
permitted emissions limits, the high $10,000 cost per ton reduction 
threshold Oregon used in reviewing the four-factor analyses submitted 
by the sources, the conservative methodology of evaluating controls 
using permitted emissions limits, the number of new emissions controls 
imposed specifically under the regional haze program, and the 
significant emissions reductions achieved through the SAFOs described 
in the previous paragraphs, we are proposing to determine that Oregon 
satisfied the requirement to determine the emission reduction measures 
that are necessary to make reasonable progress by considering the costs 
of compliance, the time necessary for compliance, the energy and non-
air quality environmental impacts of compliance, and the remaining 
useful life of any potentially affected anthropogenic source of 
visibility impairment.
c. Additional Long-Term Strategy Requirements
    The consultation requirements of 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(ii) provide 
that states must consult with other states that are reasonably 
anticipated to contribute to visibility impairment in a Class I area to 
develop coordinated emission management strategies containing the 
emission reductions measures that are necessary to make reasonable 
progress. Section 51.308(f)(2)(ii)(A) and (B) require states to 
consider the emission reduction measures identified by other states as 
necessary for reasonable progress and to include agreed upon measures 
in their SIPs, respectively. Section 51.308(f)(2)(ii)(C) speaks to what 
happens if states cannot agree on

[[Page 13644]]

what measures are necessary to make reasonable progress.
    Oregon participated in and provided documentation of the WRAP 
intra- and inter-regional planning organization consultation processes 
in the submission.\166\ Oregon also had direct consultations with 
California, Idaho, Nevada, and Washington for sources where a Q/d 
analysis showed potential impacts on Oregon Class I areas or where 
Oregon sources may impact other states, as discussed in section IV.C of 
this preamble. The Oregon SIP submissions contain the list of out-of-
state facilities potentially impacting Oregon Class I areas and a 
summary of the four-factor analysis process and the potential controls 
pursued by Idaho, Nevada, and Washington at the time of the 
consultation.\167\ During the state-to-state consultation and WRAP 
process, no other states identified measures for Oregon to consider. 
Therefore, we are proposing to determine that the Oregon regional haze 
plan satisfies 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(ii)(A) and (B). Oregon also 
satisfies 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(ii)(C) by having participated in the 
WRAP's consultation process and direct consultation with California, 
Idaho, Nevada, and Washington. No disagreements were raised by other 
states with respect to Oregon's planning efforts. We propose to 
determine that Oregon has satisfied the consultation requirements of 40 
CFR 51.308(f)(2)(ii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \166\ April 29, 2022 Oregon SIP submission, Chapter 6.2. 
Consultations with States.
    \167\ April 29, 2022 Oregon SIP submission, Chapter 3.3 Impact 
of facilities in other states on Oregon Class 1 areas.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The documentation requirement of 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(iii) provides 
that states may meet their obligations to document the technical bases 
on which they are relying to determine the emission reduction measures 
that are necessary to make reasonable progress through a regional 
planning organization, as long as the process has been ``approved by 
all State participants.'' As explained above, Oregon chose to rely on 
WRAP technical information, modeling, and analysis to support 
development of its long-term strategy, as well as the State's own 
analyses. The WRAP technical analyses on which Oregon relied are listed 
in the State's SIP submissions and include source contribution 
assessments, information on each of the four factors and visibility 
modeling information for selected sources, and evaluations of emission 
reduction strategies based on the anticipated control measures.\168\ 
Oregon also provided supplemental information to demonstrate the 
technical bases and emission information on which it relied to 
determine the emission reductions measures that are necessary to make 
reasonable progress. Based on the documentation provided by the State, 
we propose to find that Oregon has satisfied the requirements of 40 CFR 
51.308(f)(2)(iii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \168\ April 29, 2022, Oregon SIP submission, Chapter 5.1 
Reasonable progress goals for Class I areas.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section 51.308(f)(2)(iii) also requires that the emissions 
information considered to determine the measures that are necessary to 
make reasonable progress include information on emissions for the most 
recent year for which the state has submitted triennial emissions data 
to the EPA (or a more recent year), with a 12-month exemption period 
for newly submitted data. Oregon's SIP submission included 2017 NEI 
emission data for regional haze forming pollutants. Based on Oregon's 
consideration and analysis of emissions data in their SIP submissions, 
the EPA proposes to find that Oregon has satisfied the emissions 
information requirement in 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(iii).
    We also propose to find that Oregon reasonably considered the five 
additional factors in 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(iv) in developing its long-
term strategy. Pursuant to 40 CFR51.308(f)(2)(iv)(A), Oregon detailed 
the existing and ongoing State and Federal emission control programs 
that contribute to emission reductions through 2028. The Oregon 
regional haze SIP highlights the State's aggressive programs for mobile 
sources, including Oregon's adoption of California rules for medium- 
and heavy-duty on-road vehicles, Low Emission Vehicle and ZEV standards 
for passenger vehicles, and a state clean fuels program.\169\ Many of 
these same measures, as well as other measures for the nonroad mobile 
source category, also mitigate the impacts of construction activities 
as required by 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(iv)(B).\170\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \169\ April 29, 2022 Oregon SIP submission, Chapter 4.5 Measures 
to Mitigate Impacts of Construction Activities and Mobile Source 
Strategies.
    \170\ Ibid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(iv)(C), source retirements and 
replacement schedules are addressed in Chapter 4.4 Necessary Emission 
Reduction Measures, On-going Air Pollution Control Programs and Source 
Retirement/Replacement of Oregon's April 29, 2022, submission. The 
primary source retirement considered in developing the 2028 emission 
projections was permanent closure of the coal-fired power plant in 
Boardman, as required under the regional haze plan for the first 
implementation period.
    In considering smoke management as required in 40 CFR 
51.308(f)(2)(iv)(D), Oregon explained, in Chapter 4.6 Smoke Management 
Practices and Programs and Area Source Strategies that it addresses 
smoke management through its SIP-approved smoke management plan \171\ 
and open burning rules.\172\ Open burn rules limit all types of open 
burning within the State and require that, where open burning is 
allowed, it is conducted only after obtaining appropriate permits for 
burning in specific locations on approved dates. Oregon also has 
several existing measures that help improve visibility at Class I areas 
including SIP-approved residential woodstove restrictions.\173\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \171\ 86 FR 27976, May 25, 2021.
    \172\ 82 FR 47122, October 11, 2017.
    \173\ OAR Division 262--Heat Smart Program for Residential 
Woodstoves and Other Solid Fuel Heating Devices.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Oregon considered the anticipated net effect of projected changes 
in emissions as required by 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(iv)(E) by discussing, 
in Chapter 2.5 Source Apportionment of Visibility Impairment and 
Weighted Emission Potential of its April 29, 2022, submission, the 
photochemical modeling for the 2018-2028 period it conducted in 
collaboration with the WRAP.
    Because Oregon has reasonably considered each of the five 
additional factors the EPA proposes to find that Oregon has satisfied 
the requirements of 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(iv).

F. Reasonable Progress Goals

    Section 51.308(f)(3) contains the requirements pertaining to 
reasonable progress goals for each Class I area. Because Oregon is host 
to Class I areas, it is subject to both 40 CFR 51.308(f)(3)(i) and, 
potentially, to (ii). Section 51.308(f)(3)(i) requires a state in which 
a Class I area is located to establish reasonable progress goals--one 
each for the most impaired and clearest days--reflecting the visibility 
conditions that will be achieved at the end of the implementation 
period as a result of the emission limitations, compliance schedules 
and other measures required under paragraph (f)(2) to be in states' 
long-term strategies, as well as implementation of other Clean Air Act 
requirements. The long-term strategies as reflected by the reasonable 
progress goals must provide for an improvement in visibility on the 
most impaired days relative to the baseline period and ensure no 
degradation on the clearest days relative to the baseline period. 
Section

[[Page 13645]]

51.308(f)(3)(ii) applies in circumstances in which a Class I area's 
reasonable progress goals for the most impaired days represents a 
slower rate of visibility improvement than the uniform rate of progress 
calculated under 40 CFR 51.308(f)(1)(vi). Under 40 CFR 
51.308(f)(3)(ii)(A), if the state in which a Class I area is located 
establishes a reasonable progress goal for the most impaired days that 
provides for a slower rate of visibility improvement than the uniform 
rate of progress, the state must demonstrate that there are no 
additional emission reduction measures for anthropogenic sources or 
groups of sources in the state that would be reasonable to include in 
its long-term strategy. Section 51.308(f)(3)(ii)(B) requires that if a 
state contains sources that are reasonably anticipated to contribute to 
visibility impairment in a Class I area in another state, and the 
reasonable progress goal for the most impaired days in that Class I 
area is above the uniform rate of progress, the upwind state must 
provide the same demonstration.
    Chapters 2.1 Most Impaired Days and 2.2 Clearest Days of Oregon's 
regional haze SIP summarize baseline visibility conditions (i.e., 
visibility conditions during the baseline period) for the most impaired 
and clearest days, as well as information on natural visibility 
conditions and the calculated URP in 2018 and 2028. Chapter 5.1 
Reasonable progress goals for Class I Areas shows the 2028 RPGs for the 
most impaired days and clearest days. The 2028 RPG projections are 
based on WRAP modeling which represents regulations on the books as of 
2020 plus stationary source controls recommended from ODEQ's review of 
the four-factor analyses submittals. The modeled 2028 RPGs for the most 
impaired days are presented in table 5 of this preamble, along with 
adjusted and unadjusted 2028 URP glidepaths as calculated by the 
EPA.\174\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \174\ Availability of Modeling Data and Associated Technical 
Support Document for the EPA's Updated 2028 Visibility Air Quality 
Modeling, September 2019.

                          Table 5--Reasonable Progress Goals for the Most Impaired Days
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                         Unadjusted    EPA 2028
                                                        Baseline     Current     WRAP    glidepath     default
     Monitor ID                Class I area            2000-2004    conditions   2028     20% most     adjusted
                                                          (dv)      2014-2018    RPGs     impaired    glidepath
                                                                       (dv)      (dv)    days  (dv)      (dv)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MOHO................  Mt. Hood Wilderness Area......        12.10         9.27    8.50         9.90        10.71
THSI................  Mt. Jefferson, Mt. Washington,        12.80        11.28   10.86        10.60        11.62
                       and Three Sisters Wilderness
                       Areas.
CRLA................  Crater Lake National Park;             9.36         7.98    7.72         7.70         8.85
                       Diamond Peak, Mountain Lakes,
                       and Gearhart Mountain
                       Wilderness Areas.
KALM................  Kalmiopsis Wilderness Area....        13.34        11.97   11.63        11.13        11.87
STAR................  Strawberry Mountain and Eagle         14.53        11.19   10.47        11.35        12.69
                       Cap Wilderness Areas.
HECA................  Hells Canyon Wilderness Area..        16.51        12.33   11.66        12.53        13.93
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The 2017 Regional Haze Rule included a provision that allows states 
to propose an adjustment to the glidepath to account for impacts from 
anthropogenic sources outside the U.S. if the adjustment has been 
developed through scientifically valid data and methods. The EPA's 
visibility guidance states ``to calculate the proposed adjustment(s), 
the State must add the estimated impact(s) to the natural visibility 
condition and compare the baseline visibility condition for the most 
impaired days to the resulting sum.'' In 2019, the EPA conducted 
modeling to assist states in the development of Regional Haze SIPs for 
the second implementation period. In particular, the modeling provided 
the EPA's first comprehensive estimate of international anthropogenic 
emissions contributions to visibility impairment at Class I areas.\175\ 
ODEQ chose not to adjust the glidepath to account for impacts from 
anthropogenic sources outside the U.S.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \175\ Availability of Modeling Data and Associated Technical 
Support Document for the EPA's Updated 2028 Visibility Air Quality 
Modeling, September 2019.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As noted in Chapter 2.3 Emissions Inventory Analysis of Oregon's 
regional haze SIP submission, the 2017 SO2 inventory is 
dominated by PGE Boardman's coal-fired power plant in Morrow County. 
With the closing of the plant in October 2020, statewide SO2 
emissions declined by 62%. ODEQ further concludes that at some 
monitors, ammonium sulfate is a large contributor to regional haze 
formation, but that contribution seems to be dominated by international 
anthropogenic sources and is projected to decrease by 77% as new 
standards for international marine shipping fuels take effect in 
2020.\176\ Therefore, even though Oregon declined to adjust the 
glidepath for international anthropogenic sources, such as marine 
shipping, we believe this is information relevant to our review. In 
particular, all IMPROVE stations for Class I areas in Oregon have 
modeled 2028 RPGs below the 2028 URP glidepath as adjusted for 
international anthropogenic contribution for the most impaired days. 
For the most impaired days, the 2028 RPGs also represent an improvement 
relative to both baseline visibility conditions and current visibility 
conditions. Similarly, for the clearest days, the 2028 RPGs also 
represent an improvement relative to both baseline visibility 
conditions and current visibility conditions, as shown in table 6 of 
this preamble.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \176\ April 29, 2022 Oregon SIP submission, Chapter 2.1 Most 
Impaired Days.

        Table 6--Reasonable Progress Goals for the Clearest Days
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                  Current
                                     Baseline    conditions   WRAP 2028
 Monitor ID      Class I area       2000-2004    2014-2018    RPGs (dv)
                                       (dv)         (dv)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
MOHO.......  Mt. Hood Wilderness          2.17         1.39         1.29
              Area.

[[Page 13646]]

 
THSI.......  Mt. Jefferson, Mt.           3.04         2.61         2.53
              Washington, and
              Three Sisters
              Wilderness Areas.
CRLA.......  Crater Lake National         1.69         1.05         0.98
              Park; Diamond Peak,
              Mountain Lakes, and
              Gearhart Mountain
              Wilderness Areas.
KALM.......  Kalmiopsis                   6.27         5.90         5.84
              Wilderness Area.
STAR.......  Strawberry Mountain          2.17         1.39         1.29
              and Eagle Cap
              Wilderness Areas.
HECA.......  Hells Canyon                 5.52         4.00         3.79
              Wilderness Area.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As noted in the RHR at 40 CFR 51.308(f)(3)(iii), the reasonable 
progress goals are not directly enforceable, but will be considered by 
the Administrator in evaluating the adequacy of the measures in the 
implementation plan in providing for reasonable progress towards 
achieving natural visibility conditions at specific Class I areas. 
Regardless of whether we use an adjusted or unadjusted URP glidepath to 
evaluate Oregon's 2028 RPGs for the most impaired days, the regulatory 
purpose of the RPGs has been fulfilled because visibility conditions 
for all IMPROVE stations have improved since the baseline period.
    That said, because Oregon did not adjust the glidepath and because 
the 2028 RPGs for several Class I areas are above the unadjusted 
glidepath, the demonstration requirement under 40 CFR 
51.308(f)(3)(ii)(A) is triggered. Oregon addressed this obligation in 
Chapter 5.2 Glidepath policy choice stating, ``DEQ's policy decision to 
represent URP as an unadjusted glidepath has some effect on whether 
2028 visibility projections fall slightly below or slightly above the 
glidepath (primarily at the central and southern Oregon IMPROVE sites), 
but DEQ did not base regulatory stationary source control decisions on 
the URP. DEQ based control decisions on the factors described in 
section 3 of this plan, including analyses based on the four statutory 
factors. As discussed in section III.D. of this preamble, visibility 
projections below the glidepath do not provide `safe harbor' for 
sources.
    The EPA acknowledges Oregon's position. The IMPROVE monitoring 
stations in the Cascades (THSI and CRLA) and Kalmiopsis (KALM) that are 
projected to have 2028 RPGs at or above the unadjusted glidepath are 
the same IMPROVE monitoring stations that Oregon demonstrated are 
highly impacted by international marine shipping as described in 
section IV.E.a. of this preamble. These emissions are projected to 
decrease by 77% due to new standards for international marine shipping 
fuels which became effective in 2020.\177\ Also as described in section 
IV.E.a. of this preamble, statewide NOX emissions are 
primarily from mobile sources, at about 80% of the inventory. The 
Oregon regional haze SIP highlights the State's aggressive programs for 
mobile sources, including Oregon's adoption of California rules for 
medium- and heavy-duty on-road vehicles, Low Emission Vehicle and ZEV 
standards for passenger vehicles, and the State's clean fuels program, 
representing one of the most stringent mobile source programs allowed 
under the Federal Clean Air Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \177\ International Marine Organization. 2020. A Breath of Fresh 
Air. https://wwwcdn.imo.org/localresources/en/MediaCentre/HotTopics/Documents/Sulphur%202020%20infographic%202%20page.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section 51.308(f)(3)(ii)(A) requires that the state provide an 
assessment of the number of years it would take to attain natural 
visibility conditions if visibility improvement were to continue at the 
rate of progress selected by the state as reasonable for the 
implementation period. Because these two source categories described in 
the prior paragraphs, mobile source standards and international marine 
shipping, are generally outside the control of the State, ODEQ did not 
directly address this requirement. However, the State made clear in 
Chapter 5.2 Glidepath policy choice that Oregon fully intends to 
achieve natural conditions consistent with the unadjusted URP 
glidepath. Thus, Oregon's regional haze SIP clearly indicates that the 
State's assessment of the number of years it would take to achieve 
natural visibility conditions remains unchanged from that predicted by 
the URP glidepath at THIS and CRLA. In support of this argument, ODEQ 
highlighted the new standards for international marine shipping fuels 
that will dramatically reduce regional haze precursors, as discussed 
above. We are proposing to determine that this is a reasonable 
assumption because the State RPGs in question are only marginally above 
the unadjusted 2028 URP glidepath and generally well below the 2028 
adjusted URP glidepath calculated by the EPA to account for 
contribution outside the State's control, such as international marine 
shipping. See Table 5 of this preamble.
    Given the dominance of these two emissions source categories on the 
overall inventory, it is highly unlikely that differences in the 
stationary source controls selected by Oregon would significantly 
impact the projected RPG modeling for these IMPROVE monitoring 
stations. Nevertheless, as described in section IV.E.b. of this 
preamble, considering ODEQ's conservative screening methodology to use 
permitted emissions limits, the high $10,000 cost per ton reduction 
threshold Oregon used in reviewing the four-factor analyses submitted 
by the sources, the conservative methodology of evaluating controls 
using permitted emissions limits, the number of new emissions controls 
imposed specifically under the regional haze program, and the 
significant emissions reductions achieved, we are proposing to 
determine that there are no additional emission reduction measures for 
anthropogenic sources or groups of sources in the State that may 
reasonably be anticipated to contribute to visibility impairment in the 
Class I area that would be reasonable to include in the long-term 
strategy and that Oregon has met the robust demonstration requirement 
under 40 CFR 51.308(f)(3)(ii)(A).
    Under 40 CFR 51.308(f)(3)(ii)(B), a state that contains sources 
that are reasonably anticipated to contribute to visibility impairment 
in a Class I area in another state for which a demonstration by the 
other state is required under 40 CFR 51.308(f)(3)(ii)(B) must 
demonstrate that there are no additional emission reduction measures 
that would be reasonable to include in its long-term strategy. Oregon's 
SIP revision included the modeled WRAP 2028 visibility projections for 
Redwood National Park and Lava Beds National Monument in California, 
both of which have WRAP-

[[Page 13647]]

calculated 2028 RPGs slightly above the unadjusted 2028 URP glidepath. 
All other potentially affected Class I areas in Idaho (Hells Canyon 
Wilderness Area--HECA), and Washington (Mount Rainier National Park--
MORA and Mount Adam Wilderness Area/Goat Rocks Wilderness Area--WHPA) 
had 2028 RPGs below the unadjusted 2028 URP glidepath.\178\ Oregon 
addressed these two California Class I areas with RPGs above the 
unadjusted glidepath using the same rationale as the demonstration for 
40 CFR 51.308(f)(3)(ii)(A).\179\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \178\ Although Nevada was included in Oregon's state to state 
consultation, Oregon's Q/d analysis showed greater potential impacts 
on California, Idaho, and Washington Class I areas. Therefore, 
Oregon's RPG analysis focused on those impacted Class I areas. See 
April 29, 2022, Oregon SIP submission, Table 3 3. Oregon facilities 
with potential visibility impacts on other states.
    \179\ April 29, 2022 Oregon SIP submission, Chapter 5.2 
Glidepath policy choice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In reviewing Oregon's regional haze SIP submissions, we note that 
Oregon identified one facility, Roseburg Forest Products--Dillard, as 
potentially impacting Redwood National Park with a Q/d of 10.39 based 
on 2017 actual emissions. Oregon's regional haze SIP submissions 
include a four-factor analysis for the facility and enforceable 
controls to reduce NOX emissions. Specifically, under the 
SAFO, the facility was provided the option to meet emissions limits by 
optimizing the operation of the boilers. However, should the facility 
not meet these emissions limits, SNCR must be installed, permitted, and 
made operational by June 30, 2025. With respect to Lava Beds National 
Monument in California, ODEQ determined that two facilities in Oregon 
potentially impact this Class I area. These facilities are Klamath 
Cogeneration Project and Collins Products, L.L.C. Klamath Cogeneration 
Project had a PSEL Q/d=8.69 and an actual Q/d=3.66, potential impact on 
this Class I area. Collins Products, L.L.C. had a PSEL Q/d=5.48 and an 
actual Q/d=2.43, potential impact on this Class I area. As previously 
discussed regarding adequate existing measures, Klamath Cogeneration 
Project is already well controlled with existing SCR on all six 
combustion turbine units, as well as the recent addition of ultra-low 
NOX burners on two of the units. Lastly, Oregon included a 
four-factor analysis for Collins Products, L.L.C. in its regional haze 
SIP. Based on this analysis, Oregon determined that existing controls 
were necessary for reasonable progress and that additional controls 
were not cost effective. Therefore, Oregon submitted permit 18-0013-TV-
01 to ensure these controls are Federally enforceable and permanent. 
While the EPA did not independently conduct our own four-factor 
analyses on these sources, we are proposing to determine, based on 
Oregon's application of a high cost-effectiveness threshold and the 
small Q/d based on actual emissions for two of the sources, that Oregon 
has satisfied the obligation under 40 CFR 51.308(f)(3)(ii)(B). We also 
note that Oregon conducted state-to-state consultation with California, 
Idaho, Nevada, Washington, and the WRAP states generally, and no 
disagreements under 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(ii)(C) were identified by 
California or any other state. The EPA proposes to determine that 
Oregon has satisfied the applicable requirements of 40 CFR 51.308(f)(3) 
relating to RPGs.

G. Monitoring Strategy and Other Implementation Plan Requirements

    Section 51.308(f)(6) specifies that each comprehensive revision of 
a state's regional haze SIP must contain or provide for certain 
elements, including monitoring strategies, emissions inventories, and 
any reporting, recordkeeping and other measures needed to assess and 
report on visibility. A main requirement of this section is for states 
with Class I areas to submit monitoring strategies for measuring, 
characterizing, and reporting on visibility impairment. Compliance with 
this requirement may be met through participation in the Interagency 
Monitoring of Protected Visual Environments (IMPROVE) network.
    Chapter 1.5.2 Monitoring strategy of Oregon's SIP submission 
states, ``Oregon will continue to participate in the IMPROVE monitoring 
network to measure, characterize and report aerosol monitoring data for 
long-term reasonable progress tracking. DEQ commits a portion of 
Oregon's PM2.5 EPA funding to support the IMPROVE network. 
DEQ deems the IMPROVE network representative of conditions in all of 
Oregon's Class 1 areas and would rely on the IMPROVE Steering Committee 
to advise states if conditions changed such that additional monitors 
were necessary.''
    Section 51.308(f)(6)(i) requires SIPs to provide for the 
establishment of any additional monitoring sites or equipment needed to 
assess whether reasonable progress goals to address regional haze for 
all mandatory Class I Federal areas within the state are being 
achieved. Regional haze data for Oregon Class I areas are collected by 
the IMPROVE monitoring stations shown in table 1 of this preamble. The 
monitoring stations are primarily operated by the U.S. Forest Service, 
except for the CRLA1 IMPROVE monitoring station which is operated and 
maintained by the National Parks Service. As noted in ODEQ's monitoring 
strategy chapter, Oregon would rely on the IMPROVE Steering Committee 
to advise if conditions changed such that additional monitors were 
necessary.
    Section 51.308(f)(6)(ii) requires SIPs to provide for procedures by 
which monitoring data and other information are used in determining the 
contribution of emissions from within the state to regional haze 
visibility impairment at mandatory Class I Federal areas both within 
and outside the state. Oregon relied on the WRAP source apportionment 
modeling and the weighted emission potential (WEP) analysis to help 
discern the degree to which different sectors affect visibility in each 
Class I area. The source apportionment and WEP analysis are based on 
data from WRAP's Technical Support System website \180\ for the Round 2 
regional haze analysis.\181\ We note that Sec.  51.308(f)(6)(iii) does 
not apply to Oregon, because it has Class I areas.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \180\ https://views.cira.colostate.edu/tssv2/.
    \181\ April 29, 2022 Oregon SIP submission, Chapter 2.5 Source 
Apportionment of Visibility Impairment and Weighted Emission 
Potential.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section 51.308(f)(6)(iv) requires the SIP to provide for the 
reporting of all visibility monitoring data to the Administrator at 
least annually for each Class I area in the state. As noted in the 
prior paragraphs, the IMPROVE monitoring stations in Oregon are 
operated and maintained by the U.S. Forest Service and the National 
Park Service. The monitoring strategy for Oregon relies upon the 
continued availability of the IMPROVE network. Oregon supports the 
continued operation of the IMPROVE network by committing a portion of 
Oregon's PM2.5 EPA funding to support the IMPROVE network.
    Section 51.308(f)(6)(v) requires SIPs to provide for a statewide 
inventory of emissions of pollutants that are reasonably anticipated to 
cause or contribute to visibility impairment, including emissions for 
the most recent year for which data are available and estimates of 
future projected emissions. It also requires a commitment to update the 
inventory periodically. Oregon provides for emissions inventories and 
estimates for future projected emissions by participating in the WRAP 
regional planning organization (RPO) and complying with the EPA's Air 
Emissions Reporting Rule (AERR). In 40 CFR part 51, subpart A, the AERR

[[Page 13648]]

requires states to submit updated emissions inventories for criteria 
pollutants to the EPA's Emissions Inventory System (EIS) every three 
years. The emission inventory data is used to develop the NEI, which 
provides for, among other things, a triennial state-wide inventory of 
pollutants that are reasonably anticipated to cause or contribute to 
visibility impairment.
    Chapter 2.3. Emissions Inventory Analysis of Oregon's submissions 
include tables of NEI data. The source categories of the emissions 
inventories included are: (1) point sources; (2) nonpoint sources; (3) 
non-road mobile sources; and (4) on-road mobile sources. Oregon 
included NEI emissions inventories based on 2017, the most recent year 
for which data are available. Oregon observed that statewide 
NOX emissions are primarily from mobile sources, at about 
80% of the inventory, with another 13% of the inventory coming from 
fuel combustion. The 2017 SO2 inventory is largely 
overwhelmed by PGE Boardman's coal-fired power plant in Morrow County. 
With the closing of the coal-fired operations in October 2020, those 
SO2 emissions have been eliminated, and the remainder of the 
emissions in the inventory come from fuel combustion and prescribed 
fires. For particulate matter, major source sectors include prescribed 
fire and agriculture, comprising 77% of the anthropogenic inventory.
    Section 51.308(f)(6)(v) also requires states to include estimates 
of future projected emissions and include a commitment to update the 
inventory periodically. Oregon relied on the WRAP 2028 emissions 
projections for WRAP states. WRAP completed two 2028 projected 
emissions modeling cases--a 2028 base case that considers only on-the-
books controls and a 2028 control case that considers implementation of 
the controls based on ODEQ's review of four-factor analyses submitted 
by the screened in sources.\182\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \182\ April 29, 2022 Oregon SIP submission, Chapter 5.1 
Reasonable progress goals for Class I Areas.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The EPA proposes to find that Oregon has met the requirements of 40 
CFR 51.308(f)(6) as described in the prior paragraphs, including 
through its continued participation in the IMPROVE network and the WRAP 
RPO and its on-going compliance with the AERR, and that no further 
elements are necessary at this time for Oregon to assess and report on 
visibility pursuant to 40 CFR 51.308(f)(6)(vi).

H. Requirements for Periodic Reports Describing Progress Towards the 
Reasonable Progress Goals

    Section 51.308(f)(5) requires that periodic comprehensive revisions 
of states' regional haze plans also address the progress report 
requirements of 40 CFR 51.308(g)(1) through (5). The purpose of these 
requirements is to evaluate progress towards the applicable reasonable 
progress goals for each Class I area within the state and each Class I 
area outside the state that may be affected by emissions from within 
that state. Sections 51.308(g)(1) and (2) apply to all states and 
require a description of the status of implementation of all measures 
included in a state's first implementation period regional haze plan 
and a summary of the emission reductions achieved through 
implementation of those measures. Section 51.308(g)(3) applies only to 
states with Class I areas within their borders and requires such states 
to assess current visibility conditions, changes in visibility relative 
to baseline (2000-2004) visibility conditions, and changes in 
visibility conditions relative to the period addressed in the first 
implementation period progress report. Section 51.308(g)(4) applies to 
all states and requires an analysis tracking changes in emissions of 
pollutants contributing to visibility impairment from all sources and 
sectors since the period addressed by the first implementation period 
progress report. This provision further specifies the year or years 
through which the analysis must extend depending on the type of source 
and the platform through which its emission information is reported. 
Finally, 40 CFR 51.308(g)(5), which also applies to all states, 
requires an assessment of any significant changes in anthropogenic 
emissions within or outside the state have occurred since the period 
addressed by the first implementation period progress report, including 
whether such changes were anticipated and whether they have limited or 
impeded expected progress towards reducing emissions and improving 
visibility.
    Oregon's submission describes the status of measures of the long-
term strategy from the first implementation period. The most 
significant was the amendment of the PGE Boardman Title V permit to 
include conditions requiring BART control installation and to 
permanently cease burning coal in the main boiler by December 31, 2020. 
In Oregon's 2017 5-year progress report, ODEQ reported that in 2011, 
PGE Boardman installed low NOX burners with a modified over-
fire air system and in 2014, BART SO2 controls, consisting 
of a dry sorbent injection (DSI) system. PGE Boardman was meeting BART 
NOX and SO2 emission limitations. A second BART 
SO2 emission limit was required in 2018 and the coal-fired 
facility closed permanently by December 2020. Chapter 2.1.2 Emission 
Reductions Achieved by SIP Measures of Oregon's SIP submissions show 
the most recent 2017 NEI data for sources subject to control in the 
first implementation period. Notably, SO2 emissions declined 
dramatically with the 2020 closure of the PGE Boardman coal-fired power 
plant. The EPA proposes to find that Oregon has met the requirements of 
40 CFR 51.308(g)(1) and (2) because its SIP submissions describe the 
measures included in the long-term strategy from the first 
implementation period, as well as the status of their implementation 
and the emission reductions achieved through such implementation.
    Oregon's SIP submissions included summaries of the visibility 
conditions and the trend of the 5-year averages through 2018 at Class I 
area in the State.\183\ As shown in table 2 of this preamble, the SIP 
submissions included the 5-year baseline (2000-2004) visibility 
conditions for the clearest and most impaired days. The SIP submissions 
also included the current 5-year status (2014-2018) for the clearest 
and most impaired days. The SIP submissions also illustrated in Figures 
5.3 to 5.8 the visibility metrics levels at Oregon Class I areas, 
including the 5-year rolling average for the clearest and most impaired 
days.\184\ The EPA therefore proposes to find that Oregon has satisfied 
the requirements of 40 CFR 51.308(g)(3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \183\ April 29, 2022 Oregon SIP submission, Chapters 2.1. Most 
Impaired Days and 2.2. Clearest Days.
    \184\ April 29, 2022 Oregon SIP submission, Chapter 5 Uniform 
Rate of Progress.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Pursuant to Sec.  51.308(g)(4), as part of the November 22, 2023 
supplement to the submission,\185\ Oregon provided a summary of 
emissions of NOX, SO2, PM10, 
PM2.5, VOCs, and NH3 from all sources and 
activities, including from point, nonpoint, non-road mobile, and on-
road mobile sources, for the time period from 2002 to 2021 (the most 
recent air pollutant emissions trends data available in the NEI at the 
time).\186\ Oregon also included a detailed analysis of SO2, 
NOX, PM10 emissions for 2017 in the April 29, 
2022 submission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \185\ Oregon RH Emission Trends.xlsx.
    \186\ https://www.epa.gov/air-emissions-inventories/air-pollutant-emissions-trends-data.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The reductions achieved by Oregon emission control measures are 
seen in the emissions inventory. Based on

[[Page 13649]]

Oregon's SIP submissions, and the supplemental information in the 
``Oregon RH Emission Trends'' spreadsheet included in the docket for 
this action, NOX emissions have continuously declined in 
Oregon from 2002 through 2021, especially in the point, nonroad, and 
onroad mobile sectors. NOX emissions are expected to 
continue to decrease as fleet turnover occurs and older more polluting 
vehicles and equipment are replaced by newer, cleaner ones. During that 
period, onroad sources contributed almost half of the emissions at 46%, 
followed by nonroad sources contributing 29%, and NEI point and 
nonpoint sources contributing 14%. Emissions of SO2 have 
shown a significant decline in Oregon over the period 2002 to 2021, 
particularly in the point, and onroad and nonroad mobile sectors. NEI 
point and nonpoint emissions have declined 85%. Onroad SO2 
mobile source emissions have declined 96% and nonroad sources have 
declined 97%. These reductions are due in part to closure of the PGE 
Boardman coal-fired power plant, as well as low sulfur fuel 
regulations. PM10 emissions steadily decreased in the point, 
nonpoint, onroad, and nonroad categories for the period from 2002 to 
2021. NEI point and nonpoint PM10 emissions declined 62%. 
Onroad mobile source emissions declined 29% and nonroad sources 
declined 68% for PM10. PM2.5 emissions declined 
49% for the period from 2002 to 2021. Onroad mobile source emissions 
declined 63% and nonroad sources declined 68% for PM2.5 due 
to Federal engine standards. VOC emissions declined 65% for the period 
2002 to 2021 in part due to Federal new engine standards for onroad and 
nonroad vehicles and equipment, the State low emission vehicle 
programs, and SIP-approved area source rules. Ammonia (NH3) 
emissions declined 34% for the period 2002 to 2021, with onroad mobile 
source emissions declining 30% due to Federal engine standards.
    The EPA is proposing to find that the requirements of 40 CFR 
51.308(g)(4) are satisfied by providing emissions information for 
NOX, SO2, PM10, PM2.5, 
VOCs, and NH3 broken down by type of source. The emissions 
data in the SIP submission \187\ and the supplemental trend information 
\188\ support the assessment that anthropogenic haze-causing pollutant 
emissions in Oregon have decreased during the reporting period and that 
changes in emissions have not limited or impeded progress in reducing 
pollutant emissions and improving visibility. The EPA is proposing to 
find that the requirements of 40 CFR 51.308(g)(5) are met.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \187\ April 29, 2022 Oregon SIP submission, Chapter 2.3. 
Emissions Inventory Analysis.
    \188\ Oregon RH Emission Trends.xlsx.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

I. Requirements for State and Federal Land Manager Coordination

    Section 169A(d) of the Clean Air Act requires states to consult 
with Federal Land Managers (FLMs) before holding the public hearing on 
a proposed regional haze SIP, and to include a summary of the Federal 
Land Managers' conclusions and recommendations in the notice to the 
public. In addition, 40 CFR 51.308(i)(2)'s Federal Land Manager 
consultation provision requires a state to provide FLMs with an 
opportunity for consultation that is early enough in the state's policy 
analyses of its emission reduction obligation so that information and 
recommendations provided by the FLMs can meaningfully inform the 
state's decisions on its long-term strategy. If the consultation has 
taken place at least 120 days before a public hearing or public comment 
period, the opportunity for consultation will be deemed early enough, 
Regardless, the opportunity for consultation must be provided at least 
sixty days before a public hearing or public comment period at the 
state level. Section 51.308(i)(2) also provides two substantive topics 
on which FLMs must be provided an opportunity to discuss with states: 
assessment of visibility impairment in any Class I area and 
recommendations on the development and implementation of strategies to 
address visibility impairment. Section 51.308(i)(3) requires states, in 
developing their implementation plans, to include a description of how 
they addressed FLM comments.
    Chapter 6.3.2 Consultations with Federal Land Managers of ODEQ's 
April 29, 2022, submission discusses Oregon's consultation and 
coordination with the FLMs. The FLMs and ODEQ are partners in the WRAP, 
and as partners, engaged early in inter-state coordination calls and 
WRAP technical support system development calls. ODEQ provided a draft 
of the regional haze plan to the U.S. Forest Service and National Park 
Service on May 5, 2021. Additionally, ODEQ met with the National Park 
Service on January 9, 2020, September 25, 2020, February 19, 2021, May 
27, 2021, June 30, 2021, and July 15, 2021, to discuss progress and 
provide updates on the regional haze plan. On July 23, 2021, ODEQ made 
all requested files available to National Parks Service on a Google 
drive, including an updated summary spreadsheet of ODEQ's findings and 
tentative agreements with facilities about control installation or 
emission reduction. ODEQ also met with the U.S. Forest Service on 
August 21, 2020, February 24, 2021, and May 27, 2021. ODEQ received 
U.S. Forest Service written comments on June 23, 2021. ODEQ received 
comments from the National Park service in several communications 
between April 2 and July 15, 2021. ODEQ summarized the dates and topics 
of the National Park Service comments received in table 6-1 of the 
April 29, 2022, submission. Chapter 6.3.4 Federal Land Manager Comments 
and DEQ Responses contains the FLM consultation comments and ODEQ 
responses, which were provided to the public as part of the comment 
period on the draft SIP. We have determined that Oregon provided 
adequate opportunity for FLM consultation, consistent with 40 CFR 
51.308(i)(3).
    On August 27, 2021, Oregon provided public notice on the draft SIP 
submission and held a public hearing on October 27, 2021. ODEQ notified 
the public, interested parties, the Federal Land Managers, air quality 
contacts from other states and regions, and the EPA.\189\ ODEQ accepted 
written public comment on the proposed rulemaking until 4 p.m. on 
November 1, 2021, after granting a 30-day extension from the original 
end date for public comment. Similarly, as part of the November 22, 
2023, supplement to the regional haze SIP, ODEQ provided the FLMs a 60-
day consultation opportunity and included responses to the FLM's 
comments in the draft SIP supplement that went out for public comment 
on September 15, 2023.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \189\ See ``019_5.1.1 GovDelivery.BulletinDetailReport.8.27.21'' 
included in the docket for this action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For the reasons stated in the prior paragraphs, the EPA proposes to 
find that Oregon has satisfied the requirements under 40 CFR 51.308(i) 
to consult with the Federal Land Managers on its regional haze SIP for 
the second implementation period.

V. Proposed Action

    The EPA is proposing to approve the Oregon SIP revision submitted 
on April 29, 2022, as supplemented on November 22, 2023, as satisfying 
the regional haze requirements for the second implementation period 
contained in 40 CFR 51.308(f).
    The EPA is proposing to approve and incorporate by reference in 40 
CFR 52.1970(c), Table 2--EPA Approved Oregon Administrative Rules (OAR) 
the following updates to Division 223

[[Page 13650]]

Regional Haze Rules, state effective July 26, 2021:
     340-223-0010 Purpose, for maintaining reasonable progress 
and other requirements associated with Oregon's implementation of the 
Federal Regional Haze Rule;
     340-223-0020 Definitions, updating this section to account 
for revised program requirements between the first regional haze 
implementation period and the second implementation period;
     340-223-0100 Screening Methodology for Sources for Round 
II of Regional Haze, establishing the criteria for selecting sources 
for review under the regional haze program;
     340-223-0110 Options for Compliance with Round II of 
Regional Haze, establishing requirements for sources and compliance 
options under the regional haze program;
     340-223-0120 Four Factor Analysis, establishing the 
requirements for assessing potential controls for reasonable progress 
under the regional haze program; and
     340-223-0130 Final Orders Ordering Compliance with Round 
II of Regional Haze, establishing ODEQ's unilateral order authority and 
procedures for contested case hearings under the regional haze program.
    We are proposing to remove from incorporation by reference in 40 
CFR 52.1970(c), Table 2--EPA Approved Oregon Administrative Rules (OAR) 
the outdated provisions from the first regional haze implementation 
period contained in sections 340-223-0030, 340-223-0040, 340-223-0050, 
340-223-0060, 340-223-0070, and 340-223-0080, state-effective December 
10, 2010, because the site-specific requirements contained in those 
revoked sections are no longer relevant. Specifically, the Portland 
General Electric (PGE) coal-fired power plant in Boardman ceased 
operation on October 15, 2020, pursuant to the requirements of the 
regional haze plan for the first implementation period as described in 
section IV.E. of this preamble.
    In addition to the regulatory provisions, the EPA is proposing to 
approve and incorporate by reference in 40 CFR 52.1970(d), EPA Approved 
Oregon Source-Specific Requirements the source-specific requirements in 
table 7 of this preamble as part of Oregon's long-term strategy for 
regional haze.

                      Table 7--Regional Haze Long-Term Strategy Source-Specific Provisions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                           State
              Name of source                  Permit or order number     effective           Explanations
                                                                            date
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ash Grove Cement Company.................  Permit No. 01-0029-TV-01...   10/16/2020  Permit conditions (3), (9)
                                                                                      through (11), (14), (16)
                                                                                      through (28), (42), (45)
                                                                                      through (76), (84) through
                                                                                      (97), (99), (100), and
                                                                                      (102) only.
Biomass One, L.P.........................  Order No...................     8/9/2021  ...........................
                                           15-0159....................
Boise Cascade Wood Products, LLC--Elgin    Order No. 31-0006..........    8/12/2021  ...........................
 Complex.
Boise Cascade Wood Products, LLC--Elgin    Permit No. 31-0006-TV-01...    12/5/2016  Permit condition (56), (59)
 Complex.                                                                             through (75), (77), and
                                                                                      (78) only.
Boise Cascade Wood Products, LLC--Medford  Order No. 15-0004..........     8/9/2021  ...........................
Boise Cascade Wood Products, LLC--Medford  Permit No. 15-0004-TV-01...    2/20/2020  Permit conditions (71),
                                                                                      (72), and (74) through
                                                                                      (88) only.
Cascade Pacific Pulp, LLC--Halsey Pulp     Order No. 22-3501-A2.......    8/25/2023  ...........................
 Mill.
Cascades Tissue Group: A Division of       Order No. 05-1849..........    8/18/2021  ...........................
 Cascades Holding US Inc.
Cascades Tissue Group: A Division of       Permit No. 05-1849-TV-01...    04/6/2018  Permit conditions (24),
 Cascades Holding US Inc.                                                             (25), (27), and (29)
                                                                                      through (43) only.
Collins Products, L.L.C..................  Permit No. 18-0013-TV-01...    1/26/2015  Permit conditions (3), (14)
                                                                                      through (16), (19) through
                                                                                      (24), (34) through (42),
                                                                                      (63) through (75), and
                                                                                      (77) only.
Columbia Forest Products, Inc............  Permit No. 18-0014-TV-01...    9/26/2017  Permit conditions (3), (8)
                                                                                      through (20), (22), (23),
                                                                                      (34) through (52), (58)
                                                                                      through (66), (67--
                                                                                      introductory paragraph),
                                                                                      (67.a), (67.b.iii) through
                                                                                      (67.b.v), and (68) through
                                                                                      (70).
EVRAZ Inc................................  Order No. 26-1865..........     8/9/2021  ...........................
Gas Transmission Northwest LLC--           Order No. 09-0084..........     8/9/2021  ...........................
 Compressor Station 12.
Gas Transmission Northwest LLC--           Permit No. 09-0084-TV-01...    8/10/2017  Permit conditions (32)
 Compressor Station 12.                                                               through (34) and (37)
                                                                                      through (50) only.
Gas Transmission Northwest LLC--           Order No. 03-2729-A1.......     6/1/2022  OAH CASE NO. 2021-ABC-
 Compressor Station 13.                                                               04835;
                                                                                     DEQ CASE NO. AQ/RH-HQ-2021-
                                                                                      140
Gas Transmission Northwest LLC--           Permit No. 18-0096-TV-01...    7/11/2018  Permit conditions (24)
 Compressor Station 13.                                                               through (26), (32) through
                                                                                      (35), and (37) through
                                                                                      (44) only.
Georgia-Pacific--Toledo LLC..............  Order No. 21-0005,             12/5/2022  ...........................
                                            Amendment No. 21-005-A1.
Georgia Pacific--Wauna Mill..............  Order No. 04-0004,             12/5/2022  ...........................
                                            Amendment No. 04-004-A1.
Gilchrist Forest Products................  Permit No. 18-0005-TV-01...    7/25/2023  Permit conditions (4), (5),
                                                                                      (9), (10), (12) through
                                                                                      (19), (41) through (43),
                                                                                      (45) through (59), and
                                                                                      (61) only.
International Paper--Springfield.........  Order No. 208850...........     8/9/2021  ...........................
International Paper--Springfield.........  Permit No. 208850..........    10/4/2016  Permit conditions (186)
                                                                                      through (189), (192), and
                                                                                      (198) only.
JELD-WEN.................................  Permit No. 18-0006-TV-01...   12/01/2021  Permit conditions (55)
                                                                                      through (77) and (80)
                                                                                      through (87) only.
JELD-WEN.................................  Permit No. 18-0006-TV-01,      8/11/2022  Permit conditions 53 and
                                            Addendum No. 1.                           53b only.
Kingsford Manufacturing Company..........  Permit No. 204402, addendum   11/15/2021  Permit conditions (71)
                                            No. 2.                                    through (73) and (75)
                                                                                      through (91) only.
Klamath Energy LLC--Klamath Cogeneration.  Permit No. 18-0003-TV-01...    6/12/2017  Permit conditions (10)
                                                                                      through (16), (18), (24)
                                                                                      through (28), (32) through
                                                                                      (37), (39) through (49),
                                                                                      (51), (52), and (54), and
                                                                                      (56) only.
Klamath Energy LLC--Klamath Cogeneration.  Permit No. 18-0003-TV-01,      12/8/2020  Permit conditions (3.a),
                                            Addendum No. 1.                           (3.b), (61.l), and
                                                                                      (66.b.xii).

[[Page 13651]]

 
Northwest Pipeline LLC--Baker Compressor   Order No. 01-0038,              2/1/2022  ...........................
 Station.                                   amendment 01-0038-A1.
Northwest Pipeline LLC--Baker Compressor   Permit No. 01-0038-TV-01...    1/12/2017  Permit conditions (27)
 Station.                                                                             through (30) and (32)
                                                                                      through (43) only.
Northwest Pipeline LLC--Oregon City        Order No. 03-2729,              2/1/2022  ...........................
 Compressor Station.                        amendment 03-2729-A1.
Northwest Pipeline LLC--Oregon City        Permit No. 03-2729-TV-01...    2/19/2013  Permit conditions (7),
 Compressor Station.                                                                  (19), (25) through (27),
                                                                                      (38), (41), (45), and (50)
                                                                                      through (65).
Ochoco Lumber Company....................  Permit No. 12-0032-ST-01...    6/25/2019  Permit conditions (1.1)
                                                                                      through (1.3), (1.6),
                                                                                      (2.1) through (2.5), (4.1)
                                                                                      through (4.4), and (5.1)
                                                                                      through (6.2).
Owens-Brockway Glass Container Inc.......  Order No. 26-1876..........     8/9/2021  ...........................
Owens-Brockway Glass Container Inc.......  Permit No. 26-1876-TV-01...   12/10/2019  Permit conditions (33)
                                                                                      through (48) only.
Pacific Wood Laminates, Inc..............  Permit No. 08-0003-TV-01...   12/30/2019  Permit conditions (3), (9),
                                                                                      (10), (12) through (19),
                                                                                      (26) through (41), (56)
                                                                                      through (71), and (73)
                                                                                      only.
PGE Beaver Plant/Port Westward I Plant...  Order No. 05-2606..........    8/10/2021  ...........................
PGE Beaver Plant/Port Westward I Plant...  Permit No. 05-2520.........   01/21/2009  Permit conditions (62)
                                                                                      through (66), (68) through
                                                                                      (78), (79.a), (80) through
                                                                                      (83), (85), (87), (88.a),
                                                                                      (89.d), (89.f), and (89.i)
                                                                                      only.
Roseburg Forest Products--Dillard........  Order No. 10-0025..........     8/9/2021  ...........................
Roseburg Forest Products--Medford MDF....  Permit No. 15-0073-TV-01...   08/18/2022  Permit conditions (44)
                                                                                      through (46), (48) through
                                                                                      (61), (63), and (64) only.
Roseburg Forest Products--Riddle Plywood.  Permit No. 10-0078-TV-01...   07/31/2019  Permit conditions (65),
                                                                                      (66), (68) through (81)
                                                                                      only.
Swanson Group Mfg. LLC...................  Permit No. 10-0045-TV-01...   06/12/2017  Permit conditions (4), (10)
                                                                                      through (24), (25--
                                                                                      introductory paragraph),
                                                                                      (25.a) through (25.c),
                                                                                      (27) through (40), (50)
                                                                                      through (64), and (66)
                                                                                      only.
Timber Products Co. Limited Partnership..  Permit No. 15-0025-TV-01...    6/23/2022  Permit conditions (70)
                                                                                      through (72) and (74)
                                                                                      through (90) only.
Willamette Falls Paper Company...........  Order No. 03-2145..........     8/9/2021  ...........................
Willamette Falls Paper Company...........  Permit No. 03-2145-TV-01...    2/24/2016  Permit conditions (40)
                                                                                      through (55) only.
Woodgrain Millwork LLC--Particleboard....  Permit No. 31-0002-TV-01...    5/24/2021  Permit conditions (3), (12)
                                                                                      through (21), (22--
                                                                                      introductory paragraph),
                                                                                      (22.a), (22.e), (22.f),
                                                                                      (23), (25) though (28),
                                                                                      (30) through (35), (37),
                                                                                      (39) through (41), (43),
                                                                                      (44), (46), (48), (49),
                                                                                      (51) through (72), (80)
                                                                                      through (94), and (96)
                                                                                      only.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

VI. Incorporation by Reference

    In this document, the EPA is proposing to include regulatory text 
in an EPA final rule that includes incorporation by reference. In 
accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, the EPA is proposing to 
incorporate by reference the regulatory and source-specific provisions 
described in section V. of this preamble. The EPA has made, and will 
continue to make, these materials generally available through https://www.regulations.gov and at the EPA Region 10 Office (please contact the 
person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of 
this preamble for more information).
    The EPA is also proposing to remove from incorporation by reference 
the regulatory provisions described in section V. of this preamble.

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 Clean Air Act 
and applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). 
Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, the EPA's role is to approve state 
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. 
Accordingly, this action merely proposes to approve 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 14094 (88 FR 21879, April 11, 2023);
     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 subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, 
April 23, 1997) because it approves a state program;
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to 
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001); and
     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.
    In addition, this proposed action, pertaining to the Oregon 
regional haze SIP submissions for the second planning period, would not 
be approved to 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 rulemaking would 
not have Tribal implications and would not impose substantial direct 
costs on tribal governments or preempt Tribal law as

[[Page 13652]]

specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). 
Consistent with EPA policy, the EPA provided a consultation opportunity 
to Tribes located in Oregon, in letters dated May 4, 2022, included in 
the docket for this action.
    Executive Order 12898 (Federal Actions to Address Environmental 
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations, 59 FR 7629, 
February 16, 1994) directs Federal agencies to identify and address 
``disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental 
effects'' of their actions on minority populations and low-income 
populations to the greatest extent practicable and permitted by law. 
The EPA defines environmental justice (EJ) as ``the fair treatment and 
meaningful involvement of all people regardless of race, color, 
national origin, or income with respect to the development, 
implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and 
policies.'' The EPA further defines the term fair treatment to mean 
that ``no group of people should bear a disproportionate burden of 
environmental harms and risks, including those resulting from the 
negative environmental consequences of industrial, governmental, and 
commercial operations or programs and policies.'' The Oregon Department 
of Environmental Quality did evaluate environmental justice 
considerations as part of its SIP submittal; the CAA and applicable 
implementing regulations neither prohibit nor require such an 
evaluation. The EPA did not perform an EJ analysis and did not consider 
EJ in this action. Consideration of EJ is not required as part of this 
action, and there is no information in the record inconsistent with the 
stated goal of Executive Order 12898 of achieving environmental justice 
for people of color, low-income populations, and Indigenous peoples.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

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

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

    Dated: February 14, 2024.
Casey Sixkiller,
Regional Administrator, Region 10.
[FR Doc. 2024-03529 Filed 2-22-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P