Technical Support Document

Evaluation of 2013 Hawaii Infrastructure State Implementation Plan (SIP)

for 2008 Lead (Pb) National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS)

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Region 9

September 2013
1

BACKGROUND1

Section 110(a)(1) and (2) of the Clean Air Act (CAA) requires states to address basic SIP 

requirements to implement, maintain and enforce the NAAQS no later than three years 

after the promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS. Many of the section 110(a)(2) SIP 

elements relate to the general information and authorities that constitute the 

"infrastructure" of a state's air quality management program and SIP submittals that 

address these requirements are referred to as “infrastructure SIPs.”

On October 15, 2008, EPA issued a revised NAAQS for Pb.

2

This action triggered a 

requirement for states to submit an infrastructure SIP to address the applicable 

requirements of section 110(a)(2) within three years of issuance of the new or revised 

NAAQS. On October 14, 2011, EPA issued “Guidance on Section 110 Infrastructure 

SIPs for the 2008 Pb NAAQS.”3

On February 13, 2013, the Hawaii Department of Health (HDOH) submitted the “Hawaii 

State Implementation Plan Revision for 2008 Pb National Ambient Air Quality Standard

Clean Air Act section 110(a)(1) & (2)” (Hawaii Pb Infrastructure SIP), which includes 

(1) an “Infrastructure SIP Certification of Adequacy,” (2) Hawaii Administrative Rules 

(HAR) section 11-60.1-90; (3) technical support documents concerning interstate 

transport under 110(a)(2)(D) and (4) other supporting materials.4

On February 26, 2013, EPA found that Hawaii had failed to make a complete submittal to 

satisfy the requirements of section 110(a)(2) for the 2008 Pb NAAQS.

5

Specifically, EPA 

found Hawaii failed to submit the infrastructure SIP elements that relate to the prevention 

of significant deterioration (PSD) program for the 2008 Pb NAAQS in CAA sections 

110(a)(2)(C), (D)(i)(II), (D)(ii), and (J).

6 We also explained that, because EPA had 

already promulgated a FIP that addresses PSD-related requirements for Hawaii, the 

 

1

Please see the preamble to our proposed rule “Approval and Promulgation of State Implementation Plans; 

Hawaii; Infrastructure Requirements for the 2008 Lead National Ambient Air Quality Standard” (EPAR09-OAR-2013-0681) for additional information concerning the statutory and regulatory background for 

this document.

2

73 FR 66964. The final rule was signed on October 15, 2008 and published in the Federal Register on 

November 12, 2008. The 1978 Pb standard (1.5 μg/m3 as a quarterly average) was modified to a rolling 3 

month average not to be exceeded of 0.15 μg/m3. The EPA also revised the secondary NAAQS to 0.15 

μg/m3and made it identical to the revised primary standard (73 FR 66964). 

3

See Memorandum from Stephen D. Page, Director, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, to 

Regional Air Division Directors, Regions 1-10 (October 14, 2011). 

4 A copy of the complete Hawaii Pb Infrastructure SIP submittal has been placed in the docket for this 

action and is available online at http://www.regulations.gov, docket number EPA-R09-OAR-2013-0681.

5

78 FR 12961.

6

Id. 
2

finding of failure to submit would not trigger any additional PSD FIP obligations for 

Hawaii.

SUMMARY

This technical support document (TSD) summarizes EPA’s technical review of the 

Hawaii Pb Infrastructure SIP in relation to the infrastructure SIP requirements (or 

“elements”) of CAA section 110(a)(2) and 40 CFR Part 51.

7

In this TSD, we first provide 

an evaluation of HAR section 11-60.1-90 in relation to the general SIP requirements of 

the CAA. Then, for each infrastructure SIP element we describe the requirements, 

provide the State’s response to the requirement8and present our evaluation of the 

submittal.

As explained above, we previously found the Hawaii Pb Infrastructure SIP incomplete 

with respect to the PSD-related requirements of section 110(a)(2). Under CAA section 

110(k)(1)(C), where EPA determines that a portion of a SIP submission is incomplete, 

“the State shall be treated as not having made the submission (or, in the Administrator's 

discretion, part thereof).” Accordingly, we are not acting on the Hawaii Pb Infrastructure 

SIP with respect to the PSD-related requirements of CAA sections 110(a)(2)(C), 

(D)(i)(II), (D)(ii), and (J).

HAR SECTION 11-60.1-90

CAA requirement(s):

CAA section 110(a)(2) generally requires that SIP rules be enforceable. 9 CAA section 

110(l) prohibits EPA from approving any revision of a SIP “if the revision would 

interfere with any applicable requirement concerning attainment and reasonable further 

progress . . . or any other applicable requirement of [the Act].” We have evaluated this 

HAR section 11-60.1-90 to determine whether it is enforceable and whether it would 

interfere with any applicable requirement concerning attainment and reasonable further 

progress (RFP) or any other applicable requirement of the Act.

 

7 Two section 110(a)(2) requirements are considered by EPA to be outside the scope of infrastructure SIP 

actions because they pertain to plan requirements for nonattainment areas: (1) section 110(a)(2)(C) to the 

extent it refers to permit programs under part D; and (2) section 110(a)(2)(I) in its entirety. Therefore, this 

TSD does not address these requirements.

8

For each of the elements, we provide the relevant excerpt from the Infrastructure SIP Certification of 

Adequacy, using italics to indicate direct quotations. In addition, for section 110(a)(2)(D), we provide a 

summary of the State’s technical support documents for this element.

9

See CAA section 110(a)(2)(A) and (E). 
3

State of Hawaii response to this requirement: 

HDOH provided the full text of HAR 11-60.1-90 in Attachment 2 to the Hawaii Pb 

Infrastructure SIP

EPA Analysis:

HAR 11-60.1-90 requires all “covered source”10 permits issued by HDOH to contain 

certain content, including monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting provisions sufficient 

to represent a permitted source’s compliance status with each applicable emission limit. 

SIP approval of HAR section 11-60.1-90 will enhance the enforceability of other SIPapproved permit rules by ensuring that these requirements for inclusion of monitoring, 

recordkeeping and reporting are federally enforceable under the applicable SIP. Nothing 

in section 11-60.1-90 interferes with Hawaii’s authority or capacity to carry out the 

implementation plan as required by CAA section 110(a)(2)(E). HAR section 11-60.1-90 

also does not relax any applicable requirements and thus will not interfere with any 

existing SIP requirement, consistent with CAA section 110(l).

Therefore, we propose to approve HAR section 11-60.1-90 into the Hawaii SIP.

SECTION 110(A)(2)(A): EMISSION LIMITS AND OTHER CONTROL MEASURES

CAA requirement(s):

Section 110(a)(2)(A) requires SIPs to “include enforceable emission limitations and other 

control measures, means, or techniques (including economic incentives such as fees, 

marketable permits, and auctions of emissions rights), as well as schedules and timetables 

for compliance, as may be necessary or appropriate to meet the applicable requirements 

of this Act.”

State of Hawaii response to this requirement: 

Statutory provisions relevant to this element:

HRS section 342B-3 General functions, duties, and powers of the director11

HRS section 342B-11 Prohibition

 

10 HDOH’s permitting program differentiates between covered and noncovered sources. Covered sources 

include all title V (part 70) major sources, all PSD major sources, all sources subject to a standard under 

section 111 of the CAA, and all sources subject to a standard pursuant to section 112 of the CAA, 

excluding section 112(r).

11 As defined in HRS section 342B-1, the “director” means the director of health.
4

HRS section 342B-12 Specific powers of the director

HRS section 342B-21 Specific functions, duties, and powers of the director

Hawaii Revised Statutes 342B-3, 342B-11, 342B-12, and 342B-21 give the department12

the authority and duty to establish rules to prevent, control, and abate air pollution and 

the emission of air pollutants13 in the State. This includes establishing, administering and 

enforcing a permit program to ensure compliance with each applicable federal or state 

standard, regulation or requirement. The statutes also grant specific powers for 

establishing rules to control sources of air pollution such as open burning, fugitive dust, 

visible emissions, vehicular smoke and other areas of air pollution to allow for varying

conditions.

Regulatory provisions relevant to this element:

HAR section 11-60.1-1 Definitions

HAR section 11-60.1-2 Prohibition of air pollution 

 This rule specifies that no person shall engage in any activity which causes air 

pollution or causes or allows the emission of any regulated or hazardous air 

pollutant without first securing approval in writing from the director.

HAR section 11-60.1-15 Reporting of equipment shutdown

 This provision requires prior notification of the intent to shutdown air pollution 

control equipment but does not exempt sources from enforcement action if 

emissions occur as a result of a planned shutdown.

HAR section 11-60.1-16 Prompt reporting of deviations

 This requires sources to submit prompt notification if excess emissions occur as a 

result of the breakdown or malfunction of any emission unit, air pollution control 

equipment or related equipment but does not exempt sources from enforcement 

action if such excess emissions occur.

HAR section 11-60.1-32 Visible Emissions

 This sets visible emission limitations on stationary sources.

HAR section 11-60.1-34 Motor vehicle

 Restricts the emission of visible smoke from gasoline or diesel-powered motor 

vehicles, the amount of time and location an engine may idle, and prohibits the 

dismantling or failure to maintain or operate any equipment or feature of a motor 

vehicle air pollution control system or mechanism that is required by the 

provisions of the Clean Air Act.

HAR section 11-60.1-90 Permit content (This is the initial submission of HAR section 11-

60.1-90 for incorporation into Hawaii’s SIP.)

 

12 As defined in HRS section 342B-1, the “department” means the department of health.

13 The statutory definition of “air pollutant’ has the same meaning as in the Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. 

section 7602(g).
5

 Requires that all covered source permits consider and incorporate emission 

limitations and standards, including operational requirements and limitations to 

assure compliance with all applicable requirements at the time of permit issuance;

 Requires the installation of devices for the measurement or analysis of source 

emissions;

 Requires source emissions tests to determine compliance with terms and 

conditions of the covered source permit and applicable requirements;

 Requires recordkeeping and reporting requirements to assure compliance with all 

terms and conditions of the permit.

Discussion:

Additionally, 40 CFR section 51.117(a)(1) requires that each plan demonstrate attainment 

and maintenance of the lead standard in areas with the following point sources:

Primary and secondary lead smelters, primary copper smelters, lead gasoline additive 

plants, and lead-acid storage battery manufacturing plants. Hawaii does not have any of 

these identified sources of lead.

40 CFR section 51.117(a)(2) requires control strategy demonstration for any areas with 

lead concentrations in excess of the NAAQS since 1/1/74. Hawaii has been in attainment 

of the lead NAAQS since monitoring began in 1984. See Appendix E, “Hawaii Ambient 

Air Quality Lead Data: 1974-2010.”

EPA Analysis:

EPA approved all of the statutory provisions listed above into the Hawaii SIP as 

part of our action on a SIP revision submitted by HDOH on December 14, 2011 to 

address the infrastructure requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2) for the 1997 8- hour 

ozone NAAQS and the 1997 and 2006 NAAQS for PM2.5 (2011 Hawaii Infrastructure 

SIP).14 EPA has also approved all of the regulations listed above (with the exception of 

HAR section 11-60.1-90) into the Hawaii SIP.15 The TSD accompanying our approval of 

those rules explained how those regulations address CAA Section 110(a)(2)(A) by 

establishing enforceable emission limitations and other control measures. This evaluation 

is also relevant to Pb, since the statutes and regulations at issue generally apply to any 

“air pollutant” or “regulated air pollutant.” HRS 342B-1 and HAR section 11-60.1-1 

adopt the definition of “air pollutant" section 302(g) of the CAA, 42 U.S.C. (g). Section 

302(g), in turn, defines “air pollutant” as:

. . . any air pollution agent or combination of such agents, including any 

physical, chemical, biological, radioactive (including source material, 

 

14 77 FR 47530 (August 9, 2012).

15 77 FR 25084 (April 27, 2012).
6

special nuclear material, and byproduct material) substance or matter 

which is emitted into or otherwise enters the ambient air. . . 

HRS 342B-1 and HAR section 11-60.1-1 define “regulated air pollutant” to 

include (among other things) any air pollutant for which a NAAQS has been 

adopted. Therefore, the previously-approved statutory and regulatory provisions

cited in relation to CAA Section 110(a)(2)(A) also apply to Pb.

In addition to these already-approved SIP provisions, HAR section 11-60.1-90 will 

enhance the enforceability of other SIP-approved permit rules by ensuring that these 

requirements for inclusion of monitoring, recordkeeping and reporting in covered source 

permits are federally enforceable under the applicable SIP.

Therefore, we propose to find that the Hawaii Pb Infrastructure SIP meets the 

requirements of 110(a)(2)(A) for the 2008 Pb NAAQS. 

SECTION 110(A)(2)(B): AMBIENT AIR QUALITY MONITORING/DATA SYSTEM

CAA requirement(s):

Section 110(a)(2)(B) requires SIPs to “provide for establishment and operation of 

appropriate devices, methods, systems, and procedures necessary to—(i) monitor, 

compile, and analyze data on ambient air quality, and (ii) upon request, make such data 

available to the Administrator.”

State of Hawaii response to this requirement:

Statutory provisions relevant to this element:

HRS section 342B-7(1) Annual Reports

Pursuant to this statute, the department is required to compile an annual report 

summarizing air quality data from all air quality monitoring stations.

Discussion:

On August 10, 1981, EPA approved an air quality surveillance plan as a revision to the 

Hawaii SIP, 46 FR 40512. On July 9, 2004, EPA approved an amendment to the state’s 

air quality surveillance network as a revision to the Hawaii SIP, 69 FR 41431. 

Hawaii monitors for all criteria pollutants as required in 40 CFR Part 58 Appendix D. 

Lead is monitored by an EPA approved Federal Reference Method at the Kapolei NCore 

station.

The annual air monitoring network plans have been submitted in accordance with 40 CFR 

58.10. The monitoring network is operated in accordance with 40 CFR 58 Appendices A, 
7

C, D, and E. The 2012 network plan was submitted by July 1, 2012, and included the lead 

monitoring information at the NCore station. The 2011 network plan was submitted by 

July 1, 2011, and approved by EPA on October 31, 2011. 

The annual data certification letter is submitted to the Administrator in accordance with 

40 CFR 58.15. 

All quality assured, validated data is submitted to EPA’s AQS in accordance with 40 CFR 

58.16.

The annual data summary and annual network plan are provided for public viewing on 

the department’s website.

EPA Analysis:

On February 13, 2013 EPA approved Hawaii’s 2012 Annual Air Monitoring Network 

Plan.

16 This plan provides for an existing network of 12 monitors, which meet the 

technical requirements of 40 CFR 58, Subpart B. 

The State of Hawaii submits data to AQS in accordance with the deadlines in 40 CFR 

58.16. EPA's last Technical System Audit (TSA) of Hawaii was completed in 2011 and 

found that Hawaii's operations met the requirements for collecting regulatory data.17

We propose to find that the Hawaii Pb Infrastructure SIP meets the requirements of CAA 

Section 110(a)(2)(B) for the 2008 Pb NAAQS.

SECTION 110(A)(2)(C): PROGRAMS FOR ENFORCEMENT, PSD, AND NSR

CAA requirement(s):

CAA section 110(a)(2)(C) requires SIPs to “include a program to provide for the 

enforcement of the measures described in [section 110(a)(2)(A)], and regulation of the 

modification and construction of any stationary source within the areas covered by the 

plan as necessary to assure that national ambient air quality standards are achieved, 

including a permit program as required in parts C and D [of Title I of the Clean Air 

Act].”

State of Hawaii response to this requirement:

Sub-element 1: enforcement of emissions limitations and other control measures

 

16 A copy of our approval letter is in the docket for this rulemaking.

17A copy of the TSA is in the docket for this rulemaking.
8

Statutory provisions that provide the authority for this element:

HRS section 342B-15 Complaints; hearings; appointment of masters

 Allows for the receipt or initiation, investigation, and legal proceedings of 

complaints on air pollution.

HRS section 342B-41 Inspection of premises

 In accordance with the law, provides for the inspection or investigation of actual 

or suspected sources of air pollution to ascertain compliance or noncompliance 

with any rule, standard or permit.

HRS section 342B-42 Enforcement

 Specifies the enforcement procedures on any person in violation of this chapter, 

rule or any issued permit or variance.

HRS section 342B-43 Emergency powers; procedures

 Provides emergency powers to the governor or director in the event that there is 

an imminent peril to public health and safety due to the release of any air 

pollutant or combination of air pollutants that requires immediate action.

HRS section 342B-44 Injunctive and other relief

 Allows the director to impose and collect civil and administrative penalties or 

obtain other relief.

HRS section 342B-45 Citation

 Any person who violates the vehicular smoke emission and open burning control 

rules may be issued a summons or citation for the violation.

HRS section 342B-46 Appeal

 Provides for the appeal process for an enforcement decision.

HRS section 342B-47 Civil penalties

 Sets fines for violations of the vehicular smoke emission rule, open burning 

control rule, and any other rule or condition of an issued permit.

HRS section 342B-48 Administrative penalties

HRS section 342B-49 Criminal penalties

HRS section 342B-50 Disposition of collected fines and penalties 

 Requires that all fines and penalties collected under this chapter be deposited into 

the environmental response revolving fund.

HRS section 342B-51 Enforcement by state and county authorities

HRS section 342B-52 Nonliability of department personnel

HRS section 342B-53 Other action not barred

HRS section 342B-54 Priority in courts

HRS section 342B-55 Consent orders; settlement agreements

Regulatory provision for the implementation of the statutory authorities:

HAR section 11-60.1-19 Penalties and remedies

 States that any person who violates any provision of this chapter or any term or 

condition of a permit shall be subject to the penalties and remedies provided in 

342B sections 42, 44, 47, and 48.
9

Sub-element 2: regulation of the construction and modification of stationary sources

Statutory provisions that provide the authority for this element:

HRS section 342B-21 Specific functions, duties, and powers of the director

HRS section 342B-22 Permit and permit renewal; requirements

 Requires that the owner or operator of a covered source obtain a permit from the 

department.

HRS section 342B-23 Application for permit

HRS section 342B-24 Action on a permit application

HRS section 342B-25 Approval of permit

HRS section 342B-26 General and temporary permits; single permit

HRS section 342B-27 Other permit action

 Provides conditions under which the director may terminate, modify, suspend, or 

revoke and reissue any permit.

HRS section 342B-28 Recordkeeping and monitoring requirements

HRS section 342B-29 Fees

HRS section 342B-30 Judicial review

HRS section 342B-31 Government records; confidential information

HRS section 342B-32 Clean air special fund

HRS section 342B-33 Minimum permit conditions

HRS section 342B-34 Exceptions

 The construction and modification of stationary sources in Hawaii is primarily

regulated through the Hawaii Administrative Rules section 11-60.1 which 

encompasses the covered source permit program and have been approved into 

Hawaii’s SIP. See 77 FR 24148 and 77 FR 25084. 

Regulatory provisions for the implementation of the statutory authorities include:

HAR section 11-60.1-1 Definitions

HAR section 11-60.1-2 Prohibition of air pollution

HAR section 11-60.1-3 General conditions for considering applications

HAR section 11-60.1-5 Permit conditions

 Allows the director to impose more restrictive conditions in a permit to further 

limit the air pollutants and operation of the source.

HAR section 11-60.1-7 Transfer of permit

 Except for temporary permits issued pursuant to this chapter, this rule prohibits 

the transfer of a permit from one person to another or from one location to 

another without approval from the director.

HAR section 11-60.1-11 Sampling, testing, and reporting methods

HAR section 11-60.1-12 Air quality models

HAR section 11-60.1-14 Public access to information

HAR section 11-60.1-81 Definitions

 Covers the definitions used for the covered source program.
10

HAR section 11-60.1-82 Applicability

HAR section 11-60.1-83 Initial covered source permit application

HAR section 11-60.1-84 Duty to supplement or correct permit applications

HAR section 11-60.1-90 Permit content (This is the initial submission of HAR section 11-

60.1-90 for incorporation into Hawaii’s SIP.)

 Lists elements to be considered and incorporated into all covered source permits 

as applicable, including (but not limited to):

o Emission limitations and standards, including operational requirements;

o Requirements for the installation of measurement devices for source 

emissions or ambient concentrations of air pollutants;

o Requirement for source emissions tests or alternative testing 

methodologies;

o Monitoring and recordkeeping requirements

HAR section 11-60.1-91 Temporary covered source permits

 Requires owners or operators of a temporary covered source to certify its intention 

to operate at various locations with the same equipment and similar operational 

methods.

HAR section 11-60.1-92 Covered source general permits

 Governs the issuance of general permits for similar nonmajor covered sources.

HAR section 11-60.1-93 Federally-enforceable permit terms and conditions

 States that terms and conditions in a covered source permit are federally 

enforceable.

HAR section 11-60.1-99 Public participation

HAR section 11-60.1-103 Applications for minor modifications

 Every application for a minor modification to a covered source is required to 

submit sufficient information to enable the director to make a decision on the 

application. Some of the information required include:

o A clear description of all changes;

o A statement of why the modification is determined to be minor;

o Maximum emission rates;

o The identification of any new applicable requirements that will apply if the 

minor modification occurs.

HAR section 11-60.1-104 Applications for significant modifications

 This rule states that every application for a significant modification to a covered 

source is subject to the same requirements as for an initial covered source permit 

application pursuant to 11-60.1-83 as it pertains to the proposed significant 

modification.

Discussion:

EPA determined that Hawaii’s SIP did not include approvable procedures for preventing 

significant deterioration of air quality. Therefore EPA incorporated 40 CFR 52.21 into 

the applicable Hawaii plan, see 40 CFR 52.632(b). DOH has been delegated the authority 

to implement the provisions of 40 CFR 52.21 since 1983.
11

EPA Analysis:

CAA section 110(a)(2)(C) consist of three sub-elements: enforcement, state-wide 

regulation of new and modified minor sources and minor modifications of major sources

(i.e. minor source NSR), and pre-construction permitting of major sources and major 

modifications in areas designated attainment or unclassifiable for the subject NAAQS as 

required by CAA title I part C (i.e., the major source PSD program).

18 As explained 

above, we are not acting on the Hawaii Pb Infrastructure SIP with respect to the major 

source PSD permitting program. Therefore, we are evaluating only the enforcement and 

minor source NSR sub-elements of 110(a)(2)(C).

On April 27, 2012, EPA approved a number of DOH regulations, including several of 

those cited by Hawaii in relation to 110(a)(2)(C), into the applicable SIP.

19 The TSD for 

those rules provides further analysis with respect to how the submitted regulations 

address the enforcement program requirement of 110(a)(2)(C).

In addition, on April 23, 2012, EPA approved into the Hawaii SIP additional regulations 

that update and replace Hawaii’s existing minor new source review (minor NSR) rules,

including the remainder of the regulations listed above (with the exception of HAR 

section 11-60.1-90).

20 The TSDs for those rules provides further analysis with respect to 

how the submitted regulations address CAA Section 110(a)(2)(C). As explained under 

section 110(a)(2)(A) above, these analyses are also relevant to Pb, since the statutes and 

regulations at issue generally apply to any “air pollutant” or “regulated air pollutant.” 

In addition to these already-approved rules, HAR section 11-60.1-90, which we are 

proposing to approve as part of this action, will enhance the enforceability of other SIPapproved permit rules by ensuring that these requirements for inclusion of monitoring, 

recordkeeping and reporting in covered source permits are federally enforceable under 

the applicable SIP.

Based on those analyses, we propose to find that the Hawaii Pb Infrastructure SIP meets 

the enforcement and minor NSR requirements of 110(a)(2)(C) with respect to the 2008 

Pb NAAQS.

 

18 As explained above, EPA interprets the portion of section 110(a)(2)(C) that pertains to a permitting 

program that applies to nonattainment NSR to be outside the scope of the infrastructure SIP requirements 

because of the separate statutory schedules for area designations and submission of attainment plans 

provided under part D, in title I of the CAA.

19 77 FR 25084.

20 77 FR 24148.
12

SECTION 110(A)(2)(D): INTERSTATE TRANSPORT PROVISIONS

CAA requirement(s):

CAA Section 110(a)(2)(D) requires SIPs to:

“contain adequate provisions—

(i) prohibiting, consistent with the provisions of this subchapter, any source or 

other type of emissions activity within the State from emitting any air pollutant in 

amounts which will—

(I) contribute significantly to nonattainment in, or interfere with 

maintenance by, any other State with respect to any such national primary 

or secondary ambient air quality standard, or 

(II) interfere with measures required to be included in the applicable 

implementation plan for any other State under part C of this subchapter to 

prevent significant deterioration of air quality or to protect visibility.

(ii) Each such plan shall contain adequate provisions insuring compliance with the 

applicable requirements of sections 126 and 115 (relating to interstate and 

international pollution abatement).”

State of Hawaii response to this requirement:

Statutory provision relevant to this element:

HRS §342B-11 Prohibition

This states that no person shall engage in any activity which causes air pollution or 

causes or allows the emission of any regulated air pollutant without first securing 

approval in writing from the director.

Regulatory provision relevant to this element:

HAR §11-60.1-2 Prohibition of air pollution

Discussion: 

As noted in Section 110(a)(2)(C) above, EPA determined that Hawaii’s SIP did not 

include approvable procedures for preventing significant deterioration of air quality. 

Therefore EPA incorporated 40 CFR 52.21 into the applicable Hawaii plan, see 40 CFR 

52.632(b). DOH has been delegated the authority to implement the provisions of 40 CFR 

52.21 since 1983. Hawaii is the most isolated state in the country, located approximately 

2,292 miles from Alaska and 2,395 miles from California. Internationally, Vancouver, 

Canada lies approximately 2,709 miles northeast of Hawaii, Mexico City 3,789 miles to 

the east and Tokyo, Japan 3,862 miles to the northwest.

The prevailing winds for the state come from the northeast direction which would 

generally transport air pollutants southwest, away from the continental United States. 
13

The Republic of the Marshall Islands and the Independent State of Samoa are the nearest 

downwind nations lying approximately 1,986 and 2,591 miles, respectively, from Hawaii. 

The nearest downwind continent is Australia, about 4,080 miles southwest of Hawaii.

EPA has determined that due to the physical properties of lead, unless there is a large 

source in close proximity to a state boundary, it is unlikely to significantly contribute to 

nonattainment or interfere with maintenance by any other state. Due to Hawaii’s low 

lead emissions (only 0.3% of the 2008 National Emissions Inventory) and distance from 

any other state or nation it is highly unlikely emissions would contribute to 

nonattainment or interfere in any maintenance plan. According to the 2010 NEI, the 

largest lead emitter was Covanta Honolulu Resource Recovery Venture with 0.3856 

tons/year.

In addition to the foregoing, Hawaii supplied three technical support documents 

(Attachments 3, 4 and 5 of the Hawaii Pb Infrastructure SIP) that support its conclusions 

regarding CAA section 110(a)(2)(D). These documents are summarized in the following 

paragraphs and figures. 

1. Hawaii’s Geographic Location

The State of Hawaii lies approximately 2,390 miles southwest of the Continental United 

States and about 3,850 miles from Japan. The State of Hawaii lies approximately 2,390 

miles from the nearest nonattainment area for lead, the Los Angeles non-attainment area, 

as shown in Figure 1: Hawaii's Geographic Location Relative to the Continental United 

States, below. The State of Hawaii also lies approximately 2,390 miles from the nearest 

attainment area for lead, Santa Barbara.
14

Figure 2: Hawaii's Geographic Location Relative to the Continental United States 

2. The Trade Wind Pattern

 The trade wind pattern over the Pacific Ocean is one of the largest and most consistent

windfields in the world. Present from 85% to 95% of the time in the summer, and from 

50% to 80% of the time in the winter [Sanderson, 1993], the northeast trades prevail over 

the islands throughout the year. Because of Hawaii’s geographic location, the 

predominant northeast trade winds would generally transport air pollutants away from the 

Continental United States.

3. The National Emissions Inventory (NEI) data

The NEI is prepared every three (3) years by EPA. The NEI is based primarily on 

emission estimates and emission model inputs provided by State, Local, and Tribal air 

agencies for sources in their jurisdictions, and supplemented by data developed by EPA.

The NEI data discussed below is NEI 2008, Version 1.5, released on May 16, 2011.

 Figure 2: 2008 NEI version 1.5 Pb emissions for Hawaii, below, is a graph which depicts 

lead emissions for Hawaii. Figure 3: 2008 NEI version 1.5 Pb emissions data for the 

United States, below, is a graph which depicts lead emissions for the United States.

According to Figure 2, Hawaii emitted three (3) tons of Pb in 2008, which is 0.3% of the 

1,016 tons per year emitted nationally as shown in Figure 3. Figure 4: 2008 actual Pb

emissions data for Hawaii, below, shows the actual Pb emissions data for facilities in 

Hawaii. HPOWER, located on the Island of Oahu, has Pb emissions of 0.57 tons per year. 

Los Angeles South Coast Air Basin,

Nonattainment Area

~ 2,390 miles

N

E

S

W
15

The Chevron Hawaii Refinery, and HECO Kahe Power plant, both located on the Island 

of Oahu, have Pb emissions of 0.20 tons per year, and 0.18 tons per year respectively.

 Hawaii’s low total Pb emissions, combined with Hawaii’s distance from the closest state, 

make it highly unlikely Hawaii’s Pb emissions would significantly contribute to 

nonattainment in any other state.

Figure 2: 2008 NEI version 1.5 Pb emissions for Hawaii 
16

Figure 3: 2008 NEI version 1.5 lead emissions data for the United States
17

Facility Island Emissions 

(tons/year)

HPOWER Oahu 0.57

Chevron Hawaii Refinery Oahu 0.20

HECO – Kahe Power Plant Oahu 0.18

Kalaeloa Cogeneration Plant Oahu 0.09

HC&S – Puunene Sugar Mill Maui 0.09

HECO – Waiau Power Plant Oahu 0.07

MECO – Maalaea Generating Station Maui 0.05

MECO – Kahului Power Plant Maui 0.04

KIUC – Port Allen Generating Station Kauai 0.03

Tesoro Refinery Oahu 0.02

HELCO – Kanoelehua Hill Generating 

Station

Hawaii 0.02

HECO – Honolulu Generating Station Oahu 0.01

HELCO – Keahole Power Plant Hawaii 0.01

HELCO – Puna Power Plant Hawaii 0.01

AES Hawaii, Inc. Oahu 0.01

MECO – Palaau Power Plant Molokai 0.00

MECO – Miki Basin Power Plant Lanai 0.00

HELCO – Shipman Power Plant Hawaii 0.00

Maui Pineapple Co. Maui 3.74E-4

Ameron Hawaii Kapaa Quarry Oahu 2.18E-4

HELCO – Waimea Power Plant Hawaii 1.73E-4

Ameron Hawaii Camp 10 Quarry Maui 1.40E-5

Figure 4: 2008 actual Pb emissions data for Hawaii

4. Modeled Pb Air Quality from the Highest Emitting Sources.

Hawaii DOH modeled the air quality concentrations of the top three (3) Pb emitting point 

source facilities: 1) Covanta Honolulu Resource Recovery Venture (HPOWER), 2) 

Chevron Hawaii Refinery, and 3) Hawaiian Electric Company (HECO) – Kahe Power 

Plant, as well as the highest mobile source sector, aircraft. The sources used in the Air 

Quality Impact Analysis account for 87% of the total Pb emissions for the State of 

Hawaii. 

 Figure 5: 3-Month Maximum Concentrations (Wide View), and Figure 6: 3-Month Maximum 

Concentrations (Close-up View), below, show the concentration isopleths of the 

maximum 3-month concentrations by receptor. As the figures illustrate, the maximum 

impact of the Pb emissions is located just offshore of the island of Oahu, and the impact 

is limited to the area directly to the south of the island. This supports the assertion that it 

is highly unlikely Hawaii’s Pb emissions would contribute to nonattainment or interfere 

in any maintenance plan of the Continental United States.
18

Figure 5: 3-Month Maximum Concentrations (Wide View)

Figure 6: 3-Month Maximum Concentrations (Close-up View)

Chevron Hawaii Refinery

HECO - Kahe

HNL

Chevron Hawaii Refinery

HPOWER

HECO - Kahe

HPOWER

HNL
19

5. Hawaii DOH’s Conclusion

Hawaii DOH concludes that, due to Hawaii’s remote distance, the prevailing wind 

direction, relatively low emissions, and low modeled impact, Hawaii’s sources will not

contribute significantly to nonattainment in, or interfere with maintenance by, any other 

State with respect to any such national primary or secondary ambient air quality standard

for Pb.

EPA Analysis:

1. Analysis of Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) Requirements 

CAA Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) requires SIPs to “contain adequate provisions prohibiting . . 

. . any source or other type of emissions activity within the State from emitting any air 

pollutant in amounts which will contribute significantly to nonattainment in, or interfere 

with maintenance by, any other State with respect to any such national primary or 

secondary ambient air quality standard.” These two requirements are referred to as prong 

1 ("significant contribution to nonattainment") and prong 2 ("interference with 

maintenance") of the interstate transport requirements of 110(a)(2)(D)(i).

In 2012, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia (D.C. Circuit) held that 

states are not required to submit 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) SIPs until EPA has quantified their 

obligations under that section. See EME Homer City Generation, L.P. v. EPA, 696 F.3d 7 

(D.C. Cir. 2012), cert. granted, 2013 U.S. Lexis 4801 (2013). On June 24, 2013, the 

Supreme Court granted the petitions of the United States and others and agreed to review 

this D.C. Circuit decision. However, at this time the D.C. Circuit decision remains in 

place and, in accordance with that decision, EPA is not treating the 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) SIP 

submission from Hawaii as a required SIP submission. Regardless of whether a particular 

SIP submission is considered “required,” section 110(k)(2) of the CAA requires EPA to 

act on the submission. Therefore, EPA is proposing to act on the portion of Hawaii’s SIP 

submission that addresses the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I).

a. Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) Prong 1 (Significant Contribution to Nonattainment).

To address the requirements of Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), DOH submitted an analysis of 

the NEI for Pb, and a modeling assessment of all sources with Pb emissions above 0.1 

tons per year. 

DOH presents a comparison of the level of Pb emissions for Hawaii and for the United 

States of America, shown above. Given the State of Hawaii’s relatively small emission 

inventory for Pb, and the large distance (approximately 2,390 miles) to the nearest nonattainment area (Los Angeles), EPA proposes to find that DOH reasonably concludes that 

Hawaii does not contribute to any exceedance of the Pb NAAQS in another State. 
20

Based on the analysis presented in the plan, EPA proposes to approve the Hawaii Pb 

Infrastructure SIP with respect to prong 1 of CAA Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 2008 

Pb NAAQS. 

b. Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) Prong 2 (Interfere with Maintenance). 

To address the requirements of Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), DOH submitted an analysis of 

the NEI for Pb, and a modeling assessment of all sources with Pb emissions above 0.1 

tons per year. 

DOH presents a comparison of the level of Pb emissions for Hawaii and for the United 

States of America, shown below. Given the State of Hawaii’s relatively small emission 

inventory for Pb, and the large distance (approximately 2,390 miles) to the nearest 

attainment area (Santa Barbara), EPA proposes to find that DOH reasonably concludes 

that Pb emissions from the State of Hawaii do not interfere with maintenance of the Pb

NAAQS in another any other State. 

Based on the analysis presented in the plan, EPA proposes to approve the Hawaii Pb 

Infrastructure SIP with respect to prong 2 of CAA Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 2008 

Pb NAAQS. 

2. Analysis of Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) Requirements 

Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) requires SIPs to “contain adequate provisions prohibiting . . . 

any source or other type of emissions activity within the State from emitting any air 

pollutant in amounts which will interfere with measures required to be included in the 

applicable implementation plan for any other State under part C to prevent significant 

deterioration of air quality or to protect visibility.” These two requirements are referred to 

as prong 3 (PSD) and prong 4 (protection of visibility) of the interstate transport 

requirements of 110(a)(2)(D)(i). 

As explained above, we are not taking action with respect to prong 3 (i.e. the requirement 

in CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) not to interfere with measures to prevent significant 

deterioration).

With respect to prong 4, Hawaii did not specifically address 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) in its

technical demonstrations regarding interstate transport. However, these demonstrations, 

as well as Hawaii’s discussion in its certification of adequacy, are relevant to prong 4 as 

well. 

Hawaii is currently subject to two visibility protection FIPs – one to address reasonably 

attributable visibility impairment (RAVI) (i.e. visibility impairment that is caused by the 

emissions of air pollutants from one, or a small number of sources)21 and one to address 

 

21 See 40 CFR 52.633(a)-(c).
21

regional haze (visibility impairment that is produced by a multitude of sources and 

activities that emit visibility-impairing pollutants and their precursors and which are 

located across a broad geographic area).22 However, neither of these FIPs regulate Pb. 

Furthermore, as a general matter, EPA has found that Pb-related visibility impacts at 

Class I areas are insignificant (e.g., less than 0.10%).23 Therefore, the existence of these 

two FIPs does not indicate any deficiency of the Hawaii SIP with respect to visibility 

impacts resulting from the transport of Pb. 

We also note that EPA included Hawaii in the regional haze program was “because of the 

potential for emissions from sources within [its] borders to contribute to regional haze 

impairment in Class I areas also located within [Hawaii’s] own jurisdiction." 64 FR at 

35720 (emphasis added). This rationale differs from that applicable to most other states 

covered by the rule, which were included because of the potential for emissions from 

sources within their borders to contribute to regional haze impairment in Class I areas 

outside of their own jurisdiction (i.e., in downwind states). In other words, at the time the 

Regional Haze Rule was promulgated, EPA did not believe that sources in Hawaii were 

emitting air pollutant in amounts that would interfere with protection of visibility by 

other states. We are not aware of any new facts that would disturb this conclusion. 

Therefore, we propose to find that the Hawaii Pb Infrastructure SIP meets the visibility 

protection requirements (prong 4) of 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) with respect to the 2008 Pb 

NAAQS.

3. Analysis of Section 110(a)(2)(D)(ii) Requirements 

As explained above, we are not taking action with respect to the requirement for 

notifications to other states in CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(ii).

SECTION 110(A)(2)(E): ADEQUATE PERSONNEL, FUNDING, AND AUTHORITY, STATE 

BOARDS AND ADEQUATE IMPLEMENTATION BY LOCAL GOVERNMENTS

CAA requirement(s):

CAA Section 110(a)(2)(E) requires SIPs to “provide (i) necessary assurances that the 

State (or, except where the Administrator deems inappropriate, the general purpose local 

government or governments, or a regional agency designated by the State or general 

purpose local governments for such purpose) will have adequate personnel, funding, and 

authority under State (and, as appropriate, local) law to carry out such implementation 

plan (and is not prohibited by any provision of Federal or State law from carrying out 

 

22 See 40 CFR 52.633(d).

23 Analysis by Mark Schmidt, OAQPS, “The Estimated Contribution of Ambient Lead (Pb) to Class I Area 

Visibility Impairment,” November 7, 2011.
22

such implementation plan or portion thereof), (ii) requirements that the State comply with 

the requirements respecting State boards under section 128, and (iii) necessary assurances 

that, where the State has relied on a local or regional government, agency, or 

instrumentality for the implementation of any plan provision, the State has responsibility 

for ensuring adequate implementation of such plan provision.”

State of Hawaii response to this requirement:

Sub-element (i): adequacy of personnel, funding, and authority to carry out an 

implementation plan

Statutory provisions that provide the legal authority for implementation:

HRS section 342B-2: Administration

 Specifies that the department shall administer this chapter through the director 

who may delegate to any person the power and authority vested in the director by 

this chapter as the director deems reasonable and proper for the effective 

administration of this chapter, except the power to make rules.

HRS section 342B-3 General functions, duties, and powers of the director

 Provides the director the authority to:

(a) prevent, control, and abate air pollution and the emission of air pollutants in the 

state;

(b) adopt, amend, and repeal state rules controlling and prohibiting air pollution and 

the release of air pollutants or as otherwise necessary for the purposes of this 

chapter; and,

(c) appoint hearings officers to conduct contested case hearings and public 

participation activities, including public hearings and public informational 

meetings.

HRS section 342B-12 Specific powers of the director

 Identifies additional specific powers of the director to administer and manage the 

air program.

Discussion:

The entire air program is administered and managed at the state level by the Department 

of Health, Environmental Health Administration, Environmental Management Division, 

Clean Air Branch with support services provided by the State laboratories Division, Air 

Surveillance and Analysis Section.

The majority of the program’s funding is obtained through the collection of fees from the 

regulated community and placed into a special fund with the sole purpose of developing 

and administering the air program. State matching and federal grant monies provide the 

remainder of funding support. Funding is reviewed annually to ensure adequacy for 

program operations. The state does not rely on any local or regional government agency 

or entity for the implementation of any SIP provision. In fiscal year 2012, the available 
23

funds for the air program has been over $6 million dollars. At the present time, this 

funding is adequate.

Sub-element (ii): ensure compliance with State Board requirements

The department does not have a State Board within the meaning of CAA section 128. The 

director is provided the authority to administer all aspects of the air program through 

HRS section 342B-2 and HRS section 342B-3. Provisions in HRS section 84 (Standards 

of Conduct) prescribes a code of ethics for elected officers and public employees of the 

state and is administered by the State Ethics Commission. Standards of conduct and 

conflict of interest provisions included in this chapter are as follows:

HRS section 84-1 Construction

 This chapter shall be liberally construed to promote high standards of ethical 

conduct in state government.

HRS section 84-2 Applicability

 This chapter applies to every nominated, appointed, or elected officer, employee, 

and candidate to elected office of the State.

HRS section 84-3 Definitions

HRS section 84-11 Gifts

HRS section 84-11.5 Reporting of gifts

HRS section 84-12 Confidential information

HRS section 84-14 Conflicts of interests

 This rule prohibits an employee from taking any official action directly affecting: 

1) a business or other undertaking in which there is a substantial financial 

interest or, 2) a private undertaking in which the employee serves as legal 

counsel, advisor, consultant, representative, or other capacity. This rule also 

prohibits an employee from acting or assisting on behalf of any person or 

business for a fee or other compensation if the employee is involved in any official 

capacity.

HRS section 84-17 Requirements of disclosure

HRS section 84-18 Restrictions on post employment

 Prohibits state employees within 12 months after separation of service from 

representing any person or business for a fee or other consideration, on matters 

in which the former employee participated in an official capacity.

Sub-element (iii): implementation of the plan by local or regional government, agency, 

or instrumentality

The state Department of Health is solely responsible for administering the air program. 

The state does not rely on any other local or regional government, agency, or 

instrumentality for the implementation of the plan.
24

EPA Analysis:

Sub-element (i) 

As part of our action on Hawaii’s 2011 Infrastructure SIP, EPA approved into the 

applicable SIP all of the statutory provisions cited by DOH in relation to CAA section 

110(a)(2)(E)(i), section as well as various other statutory provisions.24 We also 

determined that these provisions provided necessary assurances that Hawaii had adequate 

authority under State law to carry out its SIP and is not prohibited by any provision of 

Federal or State law from carrying out such implementation plan or portion thereof.25 We 

now propose to make the same determination with respect to the 2008 Pb NAAQS.

Hawaii has certified that in 2012, there is an overall budget of over $6 million and that 

this is adequate funding and personnel to implement the Pb NAAQS. 

We propose to find that the Hawaii Pb Infrastructure SIP meets the requirements of CAA 

section 110(a)(2)(E)(i) for the 2008 Pb NAAQS.

Sub-element (ii) 

CAA section 128(a) provides that: 

Not later than the date one year after August 7, 1977, each applicable implementation 

plan shall contain requirements that—

(1) any board or body which approves permits or enforcement orders 

under this Act shall have at least a majority of members who represent the 

public interest and do not derive any significant portion of their income 

from persons subject to permits or enforcement orders under this Act, and 

(2) any potential conflicts of interest by members of such board or body or 

the head of an executive agency with similar powers be adequately 

disclosed.

42 U.S.C. 7428. States are allowed to adopt “any requirements ... which are more 

stringent,” and the Administrator is required to “approve any such more stringent 

requirements.” 

With respect to 128(a)(1), Hawaii does not have a “board or body which approves 

permits or enforcement orders” under the CAA. Instead, the Director of HDOH is vested 

 

24 See 77 FR 47530 (August 9, 2012). A list of these statutory provisions and their complete text are found 

in Attachment 1 and Appendix A of the 2011 Hawaii Infrastructure SIP, respectively.

25 See “EPA Region IX, Technical Support Document: Evaluation of 2011 Hawaii Infrastructure SIP for 

1997 Ozone; 1997 Particulate Matter; and 2006 Particulate Matter NAAQS” (March 2012)(2011 Hawaii 

Infrastructure SIP TSD). 
25

with the authority to approve permits and enforcement orders. See, e.g., HRS section 

342B-21 & 342B-42.

As part of its 2011 Infrastructure SIP, section Hawaii submitted for incorporation into the 

SIP several provisions of state law that set forth standards of conduct for government 

employees (HRS Chapter 84). In particular, HRS section 84-17(c)(2) requires “[t]he 

directors and their deputies, the division chiefs, the executive directors and the executive 

secretaries and their deputies . . . regardless of the titles by which the foregoing persons 

are designated, of every state agency and department” to “file annually with the state 

ethics commission a disclosure of financial interests.”

26 Pursuant to HRS section 84-

17(d)(2), these financial disclosure statements are public records and available for 

inspection and duplication. In addition, under HRS section 84-11.5, all state employees 

are required to file an annual “gifts disclosure statement” with the state ethics 

commission, if they (or their spouse or dependent child) receive gifts meeting certain 

conditions. 

As part of our action on Hawaii’s 2011 Infrastructure SIP, EPA approved these 

provisions into the applicable implementation plan for Hawaii and determined that they 

met the requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) for the NAAQS addressed by that 

action.

We now propose to determine that these provisions also meet the requirements of CAA 

section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) for the 2008 Pb NAAQS.

Sub-element (iii) 

Hawaii’s SIP submittal indicates that DOH does not currently rely on any local or 

regional government, agency, or instrumentality for the implementation of any plan 

provision. We note that HRS section 342B-51 provides that “all state and county health 

authorities and police officers shall enforce this chapter and the rules, orders, and permits 

of the department.” This enforcement authority is concurrent with DOH’s enforcement 

authority, as set forth in HRS Chapter 342B, Part IV. Therefore, any shortcoming in 

implementation by local officials could be easily remedied through the exercise of 

DOH’s own enforcement authority. Accordingly, we propose to find that Hawaii has met 

the requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(E)(iii) for the 2008 Pb NAAQS.

 

26 Under HRS section 84-3, “financial interest” is defined as: 

an interest held by an individual, the individual's spouse, or dependent children which is:

(1) An ownership interest in a business.

(2) A creditor interest in an insolvent business.

(3) An employment, or prospective employment for which negotiations have begun.

(4) An ownership interest in real or personal property.

(5) A loan or other debtor interest.

(6) A directorship or officership in a business.
26

SECTION 110(A)(2)(F): STATIONARY SOURCE MONITORING AND REPORTING

CAA requirement(s):

CAA Section 110(a)(2)(F), provides that each SIP:

shall require, as may be prescribed by the Administrator—

(i) the installation, maintenance, and replacement of equipment, and the 

implementation of other necessary steps, by owners or operators of stationary 

sources to monitor emissions from such sources, 

(ii) periodic reports on the nature and amounts of emissions and emissions-related 

data from such sources, and 

(iii) correlation of such reports by the State agency with any emission limitations 

or standards established pursuant to this chapter, which reports shall be available 

at reasonable times for public inspection.

State of Hawaii response to this requirement:

Sub-element (i): requirements to monitor emissions

Statutory provision relevant to this element:

HRS section 342B-28 Recordkeeping and monitoring requirements

 Provides the director with the authority to require an owner or operator of any 

source on a continuous, periodic, or one-time basis to:

(1) Establish, maintain, and submit records;

(2) Draft reports;

(3) Install, use, and maintain monitoring equipment, and use audit procedures or 

methods;

(4) Sample emissions in accordance with such procedures or methods, at 

locations, intervals, during periods, and in the manner prescribed by the director;

(5) Keep records on the source and the control equipment parameters, production 

variables, or other indirect data when direct monitoring is impractical;

(6) Sample and analyze the composition of the fuel, waste, or other products being 

burned or incinerated;

(7) Submit compliance certifications; and,

(8) Provide other information as the department may require.

Regulatory provisions applicable to this element include:

HAR section 11-60.1-11 Sampling, testing, and reporting methods

 This rule specifies that:

(a) all sampling and testing be made and results calculated in accordance with 

EPA reference methods or as approved by the director;
27

(b) the department may conduct emission tests of air pollutants or require the 

source to conduct tests at the owner or operator’s expense;

(c) the director may require the source to maintain files on process information, 

nature, amount, and time periods or durations of emissions or any other 

information deemed necessary to determine compliance with applicable limits, 

national or state ambient air quality standards, or other provisions of this chapter;

(d) the information be summarized and reported to the director as specified in the 

permit;

(e) the reports be retained for a specified time period; and

(f) the owners or operators correlate applicable emission limits and other

requirements in the report.

HAR section 11-60.1-90 Permit content (This is the initial submission of HAR section 11-

60.1-90 for incorporation into Hawaii’s SIP.)

 The following conditions within this provision require covered source permits to 

include:

(5) a requirement for the installation of devices for the measurement or analysis of 

source emissions or ambient concentrations of air pollutants;

(6) a condition for source emissions tests or alternative methodology to determine 

compliance with permit conditions and applicable requirements;

(7)(B) monitoring and related recordkeeping and reporting requirements to assure 

compliance with terms and conditions of the permit;

(7)(D) a requirement to install, use, and maintain monitoring equipment.

Sub-element (ii): periodic reports on emissions and emissions-related data

Statutory provision relevant to this element:

HRS section 342B-7 Annual reports

 Pursuant to this statute, the department must compile, among other things, a 

report summarizing annual criteria pollutant emissions and all completed or 

issued enforcement actions.

HRS section 342B-28 Recordkeeping and monitoring requirements

 Regulatory provisions applicable to this element include:

HAR section 11-60.1-11 Sampling, testing, and reporting methods

HAR section 11-60.1-90 Permit content (This is the initial submission of HAR section 11-

60.1-90 for incorporation into Hawaii’s SIP.)

 The following conditions within this provision require covered source permits to 

include:

(7)(A) all reporting, emissions monitoring and analysis procedures or test 

methods;

(7)(B) monitoring and related recordkeeping and reporting requirements to assure 

compliance with terms and conditions of the permit;

(7)(F) specifics of sampling or measurements such as place, date, time, entity that 

performed the analyses, analytical techniques or methods used, results and 

operating conditions during testing or sampling;
28

(7)(G) other records including support information, such as calibration and 

maintenance records, original stripchart recordings or computer printouts for 

continuous monitoring instrumentation;

(7)(H) retention period for all required monitoring data and support information;

(7)(I) time period for submission of reports;

(7)(J) prompt reporting of permit deviations

Sub-element (iii): correlation of reports to emission limits or standards and availability 

for public inspection

Statutory provision relevant to this element:

HRS section 342B-7 Annual reports

HRS section 342B-31 Government records; confidential information

 This rule requires the department to make all records pursuant to this chapter 

open to public inspection unless access is restricted or closed by law.

The following permit program documents are deemed to be government records:

(1) Permit applications and all supporting information;

(2) Compliance plans (including schedules of compliance);

(3) Emissions or compliance monitoring reports;

(4) Certifications;

(5) Permits, and

(6) Any other information submitted to the department pursuant to the permit 

program.

Regarding confidentiality, the rule states: “upon a showing satisfactory to the director 

by any person that records, reports, or information, or particular part thereof (other 

than emission data), to which the director has access pursuant to this chapter, contain 

information of a confidential nature concerning secret processes or methods of 

manufacture, these records, reports, or information shall be kept confidential except 

that such record, report, or information may be disclosed to other officers or 

employees of the department and EPA concerned with carrying out this chapter or 

when relevant in any proceeding pursuant to this chapter.” Therefore, emissions data 

is not considered confidential information under this rule.

HRS section 342B-41 Inspection of premises

 Provides that the director, in accordance with the law, be allowed to enter and 

inspect any building or place to investigate an actual or suspected source of air 

pollution, ascertain compliance or noncompliance with this chapter or any rule, 

standard, permit or approval granted by the department, and make reasonable 

tests in connection therewith.

Regulatory provisions applicable to this element include:

HAR section 11-60.1-11 Sampling, testing, and reporting methods

(f) Owners or operators of stationary sources shall correlate applicable emission 

limitations and other requirements within the report.

HAR section 11-60.1-14 Public access to information
29

 The following information shall be made available for public inspection:

(1) All permit applications;

(2) All supporting information for permit applications;

(3) Compliance plans and schedules;

(4) Reports and results associated with performance tests and continuous emission 

monitors;

(5) Ambient air monitoring data and emissions inventory data;

(6) Certifications;

(7) Any other information submitted to the department pursuant to the noncovered 

and covered source permit program;

(8) Permits; and

(9) Public comments or testimonies received during any public comment period or 

public hearing.

Exceptions are provided for materials to which “access is restricted or closed by law” 

or which contain information of a confidential nature. The procedures for determining 

confidential information are established by HAR section 11-60.1-14(b)-(f).

HAR section 11-60.1-68 Permit content

 In part, the condition states:

(5)(F) A requirement for the retention of records of all required monitoring data 

and support information for a period of at least three years from the date of the 

monitoring sample, measurement, report, or application.

Other information pertaining to Pb:

40 CFR section 51.117(e)(1) requires that the emissions data (point source inventory) 

contain all sources that emit ≥5 tons per year (TPY) of Pb. Hawaii submits all Pb

emissions data to EPA as required and does not have any emission sources which emit ≥5 

TPY of Pb.

EPA Analysis:

EPA approved all of the statutory provisions listed above into the Hawaii SIP as part of 

our action on the 2011 Hawaii Infrastructure SIP.

27 EPA has also approved all of the 

regulations listed above with the exception of HAR section 11-60.1-90, into the Hawaii 

SIP.28 The TSD accompanying our approval of those rules explained how those 

regulations address CAA Section 110(a)(2)(F). This evaluation is also relevant to Pb, 

since the statutes and regulations at issue generally apply to any “air pollutant” or 

“regulated air pollutant.” HRS 342B-1 and HAR section 11-60.1-1 adopt the definition of 

“air pollutant" section 302(g) of the CAA, 42 U.S.C. (g). Section 302(g), in turn, defines 

“air pollutant” as:

 

27 77 FR 47530 (August 9, 2012).

28 77 FR 25084.
30

. . . any air pollution agent or combination of such agents, including any 

physical, chemical, biological, radioactive (including source material, 

special nuclear material, and byproduct material) substance or matter 

which is emitted into or otherwise enters the ambient air. . . 

HRS 342B-1 and HAR section 11-60.1-1 define “regulated air pollutant” to include 

(among other things) any air pollutant for which a NAAQS has been adopted. Therefore, 

these previously-approved statutory and regulatory provisions also apply to Pb.

In addition to these already-approved provisions, approval of HAR section 11-60.1-90

into the applicable SIP, will further ensure that requirements for inclusion of monitoring, 

recordkeeping and reporting in covered source permits are federally enforceable under 

the applicable SIP.

Therefore, we propose to find that Hawaii’s SIP meets the requirements of 110(a)(2)(F)

for the 2008 Pb NAAQS.

SECTION 110(A)(2)(G): EMERGENCY EPISODES

CAA requirement(s):

CAA section 110(a)(2)(G) requires SIPs to “provide for authority comparable to that in 

[section 303 of the CAA] and adequate contingency plans to implement such authority.”

State of Hawaii response to this requirement:

Statutory provision comparable to that found in section 7603 [303] of the CAA:

HRS section 342B-43 Emergency powers; procedures

 Provides that if the governor or the director determines that an imminent peril to 

the public health and safety is or will be caused by the release of any air pollutant 

or combination of air pollutants that requires immediate action, they can, without 

a public hearing, order any person causing or contributing to the release of the 

air pollutant to immediately reduce or stop the release and may take any and all 

other actions as necessary.

Regulatory provision relevant to this element:

HAR section 11-60.1-17 Prevention of air pollution emergency episodes

 Designed to prevent excessive buildup of air contaminants during air pollution 

episodes and set conditions for the proclamation of an air pollution alert, 

warning or emergency.
31

Discussion:

EPA notes that 40 CFR Part 51, subpart H (51.150-51.152)29 and 40 CFR Part 51 

Appendix L do not apply to lead. Hawaii does not have sources that emit significant 

amounts of lead and a specific contingency plan is not required.

EPA Analysis:

Section 303 of the Act provides in relevant part that:

. . . the Administrator, upon receipt of evidence that a pollution source or 

combination of sources (including moving sources) is presenting an 

imminent and substantial endangerment to public health or welfare, or the 

environment, may bring suit on behalf of the United States in the 

appropriate United States district court to immediately restrain any person 

causing or contributing to the alleged pollution to stop the emission of air 

pollutants causing or contributing to such pollution or to take such other 

action as may be necessary. If it is not practicable to assure prompt 

protection of public health or welfare or the environment by 

commencement of such a civil action, the Administrator may issue such 

orders as may be necessary to protect public health or welfare or the 

environment. . . . 

In its SIP submission, Hawaii certifies that HRS section 342B-43 provides statutory 

authority comparable to that in section 303 of the CAA. We find that it provides the 

requisite authority.

We propose to find that Hawaii’s SIP meets the requirements of CAA Section 

110(a)(2)(G) for the 2008 Pb NAAQS.

SECTION 110(A)(2)(H): FUTURE SIP REVISIONS

CAA requirement(s):

CAA Section 110(a)(2)(H) requires SIPs to:

. . . provide for revision of such plan—

(i) from time to time as may be necessary to take account of revisions 

of such national primary or secondary ambient air quality standard or 

the availability of improved or more expeditious methods of attaining 

such standard, and 

 

29 Memorandum issued by Stephen D. Page, Director, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, 

“Guidance on Infrastructure State Implementation Plan (SIP) Elements Required Under Sections 110(a)(1) 

and 110(a)(2) for the 2008 Lead (Pb) National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS).”
32

(ii) except as provided in paragraph (3)(C), whenever the 

Administrator finds on the basis of information available to the 

Administrator that the plan is substantially inadequate to attain the 

national ambient air quality standard which it implements or to 

otherwise comply with any additional requirements established under 

this chapter (Act).

State of Hawaii response to this requirement:

Sub-elements (i) and (ii)

Statutory provisions relevant to this element include:

HRS section 342B-3 General functions, duties, and powers of the director

 Grants the director the function, duty and power to:

(a) prevent, control, and abate air pollution and the emission of air pollutants in 

the state;

(b) adopt, amend, and repeal state rules controlling and prohibiting air pollution 

and the release of air pollutants or as otherwise necessary for the purposes of this 

chapter.

HRS section 342B-11 Prohibition

 This states that no person shall engage in any activity which causes air pollution 

or causes or allows the emission of any regulated air pollutant without first 

securing approval in writing from the director.

Regulatory provision relevant to this element:

HAR section 11-60.1-2 Prohibition of air pollution

Provides the regulatory basis for the prohibition of air pollution without first securing 

approval, in writing, from the director.

Discussion:

The department has the authority to revise the Hawaii SIP as necessary to account for 

NAAQS revisions or the availability of improved or more expeditious methods of 

attaining such standard or whenever the Administrator finds that the state’s plan is 

substantially inadequate to attain the NAAQS or does not comply with requirements 

established under the CAA.

The department is currently working on Hawaii’s SIP to address all updated NAAQS and 

will continue to do so as necessary and will submit SIP revisions whenever the 

Administrator finds that the plan is substantially inadequate to attain the NAAQS or does 

not comply with requirements established under the CAA.
33

EPA Analysis:

Hawaii has the legal authority to revise the Hawaii SIP (1) as necessary to take account of 

revisions of such national primary or secondary ambient air quality standard or the 

availability of improved or more expeditious methods of attaining such standard and (2) 

whenever the Administrator finds that Hawaii’s plan is substantially inadequate to attain 

the NAAQS or does not comply with requirements established under the Act.

In addition, Hawaii has certified that DOH will also work to submit SIP revisions 

whenever the Administrator finds that Hawaii’s plan is substantially inadequate to attain 

the NAAQS or does not comply with requirements established under the Act.

We therefore propose to find that Hawaii’s SIP meets the requirements of CAA Section 

110(a)(2)(H) for the 2008 Pb NAAQS.

SECTION 110(A)(2)(I): NONATTAINMENT AREA PLAN OR PLAN REVISION UNDER PART D

CAA requirement(s):

Section 110(a)(2)(I) provides that each SIP, “shall in the case of a plan or plan revision 

for an area designated as a nonattainment area, meet the applicable requirements of 

part D of this subchapter (relating to nonattainment areas).”

State of Hawaii response to this requirement:

The state of Hawaii is in attainment of all criteria pollutants. All ambient air monitoring 

data, is collected, submitted, and certified in accordance with 40 CFR Part 58.

EPA Analysis:

As explained above, submissions to satisfy section 110(a)(2)(I) are not due within three 

years after promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS, but rather are due at the same time 

nonattainment area plan requirements are due under part D, in title I of the CAA. As a 

result, we have not evaluated the Hawaii Pb Infrastructure SIP in relation to CAA section 

110(a)(2)(I).

SECTION 110(A)(2)(J): CONSULTATION WITH GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS, PUBLIC 

NOTIFICATION, PSD, AND VISIBILITY PROTECTION

CAA requirement(s):

Pursuant to CAA Section 110(a)(2)(J), SIPs are required to “meet the applicable 

requirements of section 121 of this title (relating to consultation), section 127 of this title 
34

(relating to public notification), and part C of this subchapter (relating to prevention of 

significant deterioration of air quality and visibility protection).

State of Hawaii response to this requirement:

Consultation With Government Officials and Public Notification

Statutory provisions relevant to this element include:

HRS section 342B-13 Public participation

 This statute requires that the director provide public notice and opportunity for 

comment.

HRS section 342B-16(3) Research, educational, and training programs

 Provides the director with the authority to conduct and supervise statewide 

educational and training programs on air pollution prevention, control, and 

abatement, including preparing and distributing information relating to air 

pollution.

Discussion:

Hawaii’s PSD delegation agreement with EPA (January 5, 1989) includes joint oversight 

and approval of the pre-construction review for major stationary sources. In that 

delegation agreement, the department “must consult with the appropriate Federal, State, 

and local land use agencies prior to issuance of preliminary determinations on PSD 

permits.”

Regarding public access to information, the department provides near real-time data and 

the current air quality index for public viewing on its website in addition to EPA’s 

AirNow Hawaii page. Administrative rules as well as proposed rule revisions are also 

posted on the department’s webpage. Public notices are placed in the newspapers of each 

applicable county as well as on its webpage for all new or renewed covered source 

permits, exceptional events documentation, annual air monitoring network plan, annual 

air monitoring book, and any other event or report requiring public notice. 

Part C relating to PSD and visibility protection 

EPA has determined that the Hawaii SIP does not meet the requirements of the CAA, 

therefore 40 CFR 52.21 has been incorporated into the applicable Hawaii plan (see 40 

CFR 52.632(b)). DOH has been delegated authority to implement the provisions of 40 

CFR 52.21.

EPA determined the Hawaii SIP does not meet the requirements of CAA pertaining to 

visibility in mandatory Class I federal areas and has incorporated the provisions of 40 

CFR 52.26, 52.27, 52.28, and 52.29 into the applicable plan. See 52.633(b)-(c).
35

EPA Analysis:

Sub-Element 1: Consultation With Government Officials

CAA section 121 (42 U.S.C. 7421) requires that:

In carrying out the requirements of this chapter requiring applicable implementation 

plans to contain—

(1) any transportation controls, air quality maintenance plan requirements or 

preconstruction review of direct sources of air pollution, or

(2) any measure referred to—

(A) in part D of this subchapter (pertaining to nonattainment requirements), or

(B) in part C of this subchapter (pertaining to prevention of significant 

deterioration),

. . . the State shall provide a satisfactory process of consultation with general purpose 

local governments, designated organizations of elected officials of local governments 

and any Federal land manager having authority over Federal land to which the State 

plan applies, effective with respect to any such requirement which is adopted more 

than one year after August 7, 1977, as part of such plan. Such process shall be in 

accordance with regulations promulgated by the Administrator to assure adequate 

consultation. . . . 30

As explained above, we are not acting on the Hawaii Pb Infrastructure SIP with respect to

the PSD-related requirements of 110(a)(2)(J).

Sub-Element 2: Public Notification

CAA section 127 (42 U.S.C. 7427) requires SIPs to:

. . . contain measures which will be effective to notify the public during any 

calendar [year] on a regular basis of instances or areas in which any national 

primary ambient air quality standard is exceeded or was exceeded during any 

portion of the preceding calendar year to advise the public of the health hazards 

associated with such pollution, and to enhance public awareness of the measures 

which can be taken to prevent such standards from being exceeded and the ways 

in which the public can participate in regulatory and other efforts to improve air 

quality. Such measures may include the posting of warning signs on interstate 

highway access points to metropolitan areas or television, radio, or press notices 

or information.

 

30 Section 121 was added by the CAA Amendments of 1977, and it also refers to section 113(d) (relating to 

certain enforcement orders), but section 113(d) was significantly amended by the CAA Amendments of 

1990, and as so amended, no longer relates to state enforcement orders. 
36

Hawaii’s SIP submission explains that HDOH meets this requirement by posting air 

quality data, including notices of NAAQS exceedances, on the web. Specifically,

HDOH notifies the public of exceedances of the NAAQS through its website:

http://hawaii.gov/health/environmental/air/cab/cab_notification/exceedances_index.html

Additional air quality monitoring data from HDOH is also available at: 

http://emdweb.doh.hawaii.gov/air-quality/ and 

http://www.airnow.gov/index.cfm?action=airnow.main .

We propose to find that Hawaii’s SIP meets the public notification requirements of 

110(a)(2)(J).

Sub-Element 3: Prevention of Significant Deterioration

As explained above, we are not acting on the Hawaii Pb Infrastructure SIP with respect to 

the PSD-related requirements of 110(a)(2)(J).

Sub-Element 4: Visibility Protection

EPA notes that, while the SIP must independently meet the visibility protection 

requirements of part C by virtue of the specific SIP requirements in sections 169A and 

169B of the Act, these requirements are not altered by the promulgation of a new or 

revised NAAQS. Therefore, we find that there is no new visibility obligation “triggered” 

under section 110(a)(2)(J) in relation to the 2008 Pb NAAQS.

SECTION 110(A)(2)(K): AIR QUALITY MODELING/DATA

CAA requirement(s):

CAA section 110(a)(2)(K) requires SIPs to

provide for—

(i) the performance of such air quality modeling as the Administrator may 

prescribe for the purpose of predicting the effect on ambient air quality of any 

emissions of any air pollutant for which the Administrator has established a 

national ambient air quality standard, and 

(ii) the submission, upon request, of data related to such air quality modeling to 

the Administrator.

State of Hawaii response to this requirement:

Sub-element (i): air quality modeling

Statutory provisions relevant to this element include:

HRS section 342B-17 Air quality modelers

 Provides the authority to establish air modeler positions for the purpose of 

assessing the impact of air releases.
37

Rules pertaining to modeling include:

HAR section 11-60.1-12 Air quality models

 This rule requires that appropriate air modeling assessments be conducted for 

new and modified covered sources as specified in 40 CFR Part 51 Appendix W.

HAR section 11-60.1-83(a)(11), (12), (13), and (14) Initial covered source permit 

application

 For initial covered source permit applications, sources are required to conduct 

an assessment of the ambient air quality impact and perform a comparison with 

the NAAQS as well as conduct a risk assessment if requested by the director.

HAR section 11-60.1-104(a)(12), (13), and (14) Applications for significant modification

 For significant modifications to covered source permits, sources are required to 

conduct an assessment of the ambient air quality impact and perform a 

comparison with the NAAQS as well as conduct a risk assessment if requested by 

the director.

Sub-element (ii): submission of data related to air quality modeling

HRS section 342B-31 Government records; confidential information

 Information, including modeling, that is submitted as part of the permit program 

is considered government records available for public inspection. Upon request, 

the department will submit current and future data relating to such air quality 

modeling to EPA.

HAR section 11-60.1-94 Transmission of information to the Administrator

 The department is required to submit all proposed and final covered source 

applications to EPA. Additionally, the owner or operator is required to 

simultaneously submit a copy to EPA, of the covered source permit application, 

including applications for renewal and permit amendment for a proposed minor 

or significant modification. The submittal includes the applicable modeling 

assessment.

Discussion:

40 CFR section 51.117(c)(1) requires special modeling provisions for urbanized areas 

with measured lead concentrations in excess of 4.0 μg/m3 quarterly mean measured since 

January 1, 1974. Hawaii has not had any quarterly means >4.0 μg/m3 since monitoring 

began in 1984.

Additionally, 40 CFR section 51.117(c)(3) requires special modeling provisions for each 

area in the vicinity of an air quality monitor that has recorded lead concentrations in 

excess of the NAAQS. Hawaii has not exceeded any of the lead NAAQS since monitoring 

began in 1984.
38

EPA Analysis:

Hawaii’s 2013 Infrastructure SIP demonstrates that the state (1) has the authority and 

technical capability to conduct air quality modeling in order to assess the effect on 

ambient air quality of relevant pollutant emissions; and (2) can provide relevant data as 

part of the permitting and NAAQS implementation processes. Hawaii has also committed 

to submit current and future data relating to such air quality modeling to the 

Administrator, upon request.

Therefore, we propose to find that the Hawaii SIP meets the requirements of section 

110(a)(2)(K) for the 2008 Pb NAAQS.

SECTION 110(A)(2)(L): PERMITTING FEES

CAA requirement(s):

CAA section 110(a)(2)(L) provides that: 

Each such plan shall require the owner or operator of each major stationary source to 

pay to the permitting authority, as a condition of any permit required under this 

chapter, a fee sufficient to cover—

(i) the reasonable costs of reviewing and acting upon any application for such a 

permit, and 

(ii) if the owner or operator receives a permit for such source, the reasonable costs 

of implementing and enforcing the terms and conditions of any such permit (not 

including any court costs or other costs associated with any enforcement action), 

until such fee requirement is superseded with respect to such sources by the 

Administrator’s approval of a fee program under subchapter (title) V of this 

chapter.

State of Hawaii response to this requirement:

Discussion:

Hawaii’s title V program, including the fee program, has been fully approved. See 40 

CFR part 70, Appendix A; 66 FR 62945 (December 4, 2001); and 72 FR 19804 (April 20, 

2007). Therefore, Hawaii’s SIP is not required to include fee provisions under this 

section.

EPA Analysis:

We propose to find that the Hawaii SIP meets the requirements of CAA section 

110(a)(2)(L) for the 2008 Pb NAAQS because the State has an EPA-approved title V 

program that provides for the collection of the necessary fees.
39

SECTION 110(A)(2)(M): CONSULTATION/PARTICIPATION BY AFFECTED LOCAL ENTITIES

CAA requirement(s):

CAA section 110(a)(2)(M) requires SIPs to “provide for consultation and participation by 

local political subdivisions affected by the plan.”

State of Hawaii response to this requirement:

Section XIII of Hawaii’s initial SIP, approved by EPA on May 31, 1972, contains intergovernmental cooperation provisions.

Statutory provisions relevant to this element include:

HRS section 342B-13

 This describes the department’s general procedures for public participation 

including the requirement to hold a public hearing when revising the state 

implementation plan as required by the amendments and regulations of the CAA.

HRS section 342B-45 Citations

 This statute provides the authority for police officers to issue citations for 

violations of the vehicular smoke emission (HAR section 11-60.1-34) and open 

burning control rules.

HRS section 342B-51 Enforcement by state and county authorities

 Provides for all state and county health authorities and the police to enforce the 

provisions of this chapter as well as the rules, orders, and permits of the 

department.

Discussion:

In developing rules or engaging in other actions that may affect other local agencies, the 

department, as a matter of practice, solicits input, consultation, review and guidance from 

the affected agencies. Some of the agencies include, but are not limited to: county law 

enforcement and fire departments; state and county civil defense agencies; county Mayor 

offices; county water boards; state Department of Land and Natural Resources; and state 

and county transportation departments.

EPA Analysis:

As part of our action on Hawaii’s 2011 Infrastructure SIP, EPA approved the cited 

statutory provisions into the Hawaii SIP and determined that, together with the existing 

intergovernmental cooperation provisions of Hawaii’s SIP, these provisions meet the 

requirements of CAA Section 110(a)(2)(M) for the relevant NAAQS. We now propose to 

find that these provisions collectively meet the requirements of CAA Section 

110(a)(2)(M) for the 2008 Pb NAAQS.