Vol. 77 Tuesday, 

No. 103 May 29, 2012 

Part II 

Environmental Protection Agency 

40 CFR Part 52 

Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; State of Hawaii; 

Regional Haze Federal Implementation Plan; Proposed Rule 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
31692 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 103 / Tuesday, May 29, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R09–OAR–2012–0345, FRL–9675–3] 

Approval and Promulgation of 

Implementation Plans; State of Hawaii; 

Regional Haze Federal Implementation 

Plan 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency. 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is proposing to 

promulgate a Federal Implementation 

Plan (FIP) to address regional haze in 

the State of Hawaii. EPA proposes to 

determine that the FIP meets the 

requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA 

or ‘‘the Act’’) and EPA’s rules 

concerning reasonable progress towards 

the national goal of preventing any 

future and remedying any existing manmade impairment of visibility in 

mandatory Class I areas. We are taking 

comments on this proposal and plan to 

follow with a final action. 

DATES: Written comments must be 

received at the address below on or 

before July 2, 2012. 

ADDRESSES: See Supplementary 

Information section for further 

instructions on where and how to learn 

more about this proposal, attend a 

public hearing or submit comments. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Gregory Nudd, Air Planning Office 

(AIR–2), U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency Region 9, 415–947–4107, 

nudd.gregory@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Table of Contents 

I. General Information 

A. Definitions 

B. Docket 

C. Instructions for Submitting Comments to 

EPA 

D. Submitting CBI 

E. Tips for Preparing Your Comments 

F. Public Hearings 

II. Background 

A. General Description of Regional Haze 

B. Visibility Protection Requirements of the 

CAA and EPA’s Regulations 

C. Requirements for Regional Haze 

Implementation Plans 

1. Determination of Baseline, Natural and 

Current Visibility Conditions 

2. Determination of Reasonable Progress 

Goals 

3. Best Available Retrofit Technology 

4. Long-Term Strategy 

5. Coordination of the Regional Haze SIP 

and Reasonably Attributable Visibility 

Impairment 

6. Monitoring Strategy 

7. SIP Revisions and Progress Reports 

8. Coordination With Federal Land 

Managers 

D. Roles of Agencies in Addressing 

Regional Haze 

E. EPA’s Authority To Promulgate a FIP 

III. Proposed Implementation Plan To 

Address Regional Haze in Hawaii 

A. Affected Class I Areas 

B. Baseline Visibility, Natural Visibility, 

and Uniform Rate of Progress 

1. Estimating Natural Visibility Conditions 

2. Estimating Baseline Conditions 

3. Summary of Baseline and Natural 

Conditions 

4. Uniform Rate of Progress 

5. Contribution Assessment According to 

IMPROVE Monitoring Data 

C. Hawaii Emissions Inventories 

1. Statewide Emissions Inventories 

2. Review of the Emissions Inventory for 

Completeness and Accuracy 

3. Assessment of the Emissions Inventory 

D. Sources of Visibility Impairment in 

Hawaii Class I Areas 

E. Best Available Retrofit Technology 

Evaluation 

1. Identification of BART-Eligible Sources 

2. Identification of Sources Subject to 

BART 

a. Modeling Methodology 

b. Contribution Threshold 

c. Sources Identified by EPA as Subject to 

BART 

3. BART Determination for Kanoelehua 

Hill 

a. BART for NOX and Particulate Matter 

(PM) 

b. BART for SO2

F. Reasonable Progress Goals for Hawaii 

1. Identification of Pollutants for 

Reasonable Progress 

2. Determining Reasonable Progress 

Through Island-Specific Emissions 

Inventories 

3. Four Factor Analysis for NOX Sources on 

Maui and the Big Island 

4. Four Factor Analysis for SO2 Emissions 

on Maui 

a. Mobile Source SO2 Emissions on Maui 

b. Point Source SO2 Emissions on Maui 

c. Conclusion of Reasonable Progress 

Analysis for SO2 Emissions on Maui 

5. Four Factor Analysis for SO2 Emissions 

on the Big Island (Hawaii) 

a. Mobile Source SO2 Emissions on the Big 

Island (Hawaii) 

b. Point Source SO2 Emissions on the Big 

Island (Hawaii) 

c. Conclusion of Reasonable Progress 

Analysis for SO2 Emissions on the Big 

Island (Hawaii) 

d. Benefits of the Emission Control Area on 

Emissions From In Transit Marine 

Vessels 

6. Reasonable Progress Goals—2018 

Visibility Projections 

7. Visibility Improvement Compared to 

URP and Number of Years To Reach 

Natural Conditions 

G. Long-Term Strategy 

1. Interstate Consultation Requirement 

2. Identification of Anthropogenic Sources 

of Visibility Impairment 

3. Other Long Term-Strategy Requirements 

a. Emissions Reductions Due to Ongoing 

Air Pollution Programs 

b. Measures To Mitigate the Impacts of 

Construction Activities 

c. Emission Limitations and Schedules for 

Compliance 

d. Sources Retirement and Replacement 

Schedules 

e. Agricultural and Forestry Smoke 

Management Techniques 

f. Enforceability of Control Measures 

g. Anticipated Net Effect on Visibility Due 

to Projected Changes in Point, Area, and 

Mobile Source Emissions Over the Next 

10 Years 

H. Coordination of RAVI and Regional 

Haze Requirements 

I. Monitoring Strategy 

J. Federal Land Manager Consultation and 

Coordination 

IV. Proposed Action 

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory 

Planning and Review 

B. Paperwork Reduction Act 

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

(UMRA) 

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism 

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation 

and Coordination With Indian Tribal 

Governments 

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of 

Children From Environmental Health 

Risks and Safety Risks 

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions 

Concerning Regulations That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use 

I. National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act 

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions 

To Address Environmental Justice in 

Minority Populations and Low-Income 

Populations 

I. General Information 

A. Definitions 

For the purpose of this document, we 

are giving meaning to certain words or 

initials as follows: 

i. The words or initials Act or CAA mean 

or refer to the Clean Air Act, unless the 

context indicates otherwise. 

ii. The initials bext mean or refer to total 

light extinction. 

iii. The initials CBI mean or refer to 

Confidential Business Information. 

iv. The initials DOH refer to the Hawaii 

Department of Health. 

v. The initials dv mean or refer to 

deciview(s). 

vi. The initials EGU mean or refer to 

Electric Generating Units. 

vii. The words EPA, we, us or our mean or 

refer to the United States Environmental 

Protection Agency. 

viii. The initials FIP mean or refer to 

Federal Implementation Plan. 

ix. The initials FLMs mean or refer to 

Federal Land Managers. 

x. The words Hawaii and State mean or 

refer to the State of Hawaii. 

xi. The initials HECO mean or refer to the 

Hawaiian Electric Company. 

xii. The initials HELCO mean or refer to the 

Hawaii Electric Light Company. 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 103 / Tuesday, May 29, 2012 / Proposed Rules 31693 

xiii. The initials IMPROVE mean or refer to 

Interagency Monitoring of Protected Visual 

Environments monitoring network. 

xiv. The initials IPM mean or refer to 

Integrated Planning Model. 

xv. The initials LTS mean or refer to LongTerm Strategy. 

xvi. The initials MECO mean or refer to 

Maui Electric Company. 

xvii. The initials MW mean or refer to 

megawatt(s). 

xviii. The initials NEI mean or refer to 

National Emissions Inventory. 

xix. The initials NH3 mean or refer to 

ammonia. 

xx. The initials NOX mean or refer to 

nitrogen oxides. 

xxi. The initials NP mean or refer to 

National Park. 

xxii. The initials OC mean or refer to 

organic carbon. 

xxiii. The initials PM mean or refer to 

particulate matter. 

xxiv. The initials PM2.5 mean or refer to 

particulate matter with an aerodynamic 

diameter of less than 2.5 micrometers (fine 

particulate matter). 

xxv. The initials PM10 mean or refer to 

particulate matter with an aerodynamic 

diameter of less than 10 micrometers (coarse 

particulate matter). 

xxvi. The initials ppm mean or refer to 

parts per million. 

xxvii. The initials PSD mean or refer to 

Prevention of Significant Deterioration. 

xxviii. The initials RAVI mean or refer to 

Reasonably Attributable Visibility 

Impairment. 

xxix. The initials RP mean or refer to 

Reasonable Progress. 

xxx. The initials RPG or RPGs mean or 

refer to Reasonable Progress Goal(s). 

xxxi. The initials RPOs mean or refer to 

regional planning organizations. 

xxxii. The initials SIP mean or refer to 

State Implementation Plan. 

xxxiii. The initials SO2 mean or refer to 

sulfur dioxide. 

x. The initials tpy mean or refer to tons per 

year. 

xi. The initials TSD mean or refer to 

Technical Support Document. 

xii. The initials URP mean or refer to 

Uniform Rate of Progress. 

xiii. The initials VOC mean or refer to 

volatile organic compounds. 

xiv. The initials WEP mean or refer to 

Weighted Emissions Potential. 

xv. The initials WRAP mean or refer to the 

Western Regional Air Partnership. 

B. Docket 

Data, information, and documents on 

which this proposed FIP relies have 

been placed in the docket for this action 

(docket number EPA–R09–OAR–2012– 

0345). All documents in the docket are 

listed in the http://www.regulations.gov 

index. Although listed in the index, 

some information is not publicly 

available (e.g., Confidential Business 

Information (CBI)). Certain other 

material, such as copyrighted material, 

will be publicly available only in hard 

copy form. Publicly available docket 

materials are available either 

electronically at http:// 

www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at 

the Planning Office of the Air Division, 

Air–2, EPA Region 9, 75 Hawthorne 

Street, San Francisco, CA 94105. EPA 

requests you contact the individual 

listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT section to view the hard copy 

of the docket. You may view the hard 

copy of the docket Monday through 

Friday, 9:00–5:30 PST, excluding 

Federal holidays. 

C. Instructions for Submitting 

Comments to EPA 

Submit your comments, identified by 

Docket ID No. EPA–R09–OAR–2012– 

0345 by one of the following methods: 

1. Federal Rulemaking portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line 

instructions for submitting comments. 

2. Email: nudd.gregory@epa.gov. 

3. Fax: 415–947–3579 (Attention: 

Gregory Nudd). 

4. Mail, Hand Delivery or Courier: 

Gregory Nudd, EPA Region 9, Air 

Planning Office (AIR–2), Air Division, 

75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, 

California 94105. Hand and courier 

deliveries are only accepted Monday 

through Friday, 8:30 a.m.–4:30 p.m., 

excluding Federal holidays. Special 

arrangements should be made for 

deliveries of boxed information. 

EPA’s policy is that all comments 

received will be included in the public 

docket without change and may be 

made available online at http:// 

www.regulations.gov, including any 

personal information provided, unless 

the comment includes information 

claimed to be CBI or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Do not submit information that you 

consider to be CBI or otherwise 

protected through http:// 

www.regulations.gov or email. The 

http://www.regulations.gov Web site is 

an ‘‘anonymous access’’ system, which 

means EPA will not know your identity 

or contact information unless you 

provide it in the body of your comment. 

If you send an email comment directly 

to EPA, without going through http:// 

www.regulations.gov, your email 

address will be automatically captured 

and included as part of the comment 

that is placed in the public docket and 

made available on the Internet. If you 

submit an electronic comment, EPA 

recommends that you include your 

name and other contact information in 

the body of your comment and with any 

disk or CD–ROM you submit. If EPA 

cannot read your comment due to 

technical difficulties and cannot contact 

you for clarification, EPA may not be 

able to consider your comment. 

Electronic files should avoid the use of 

special characters, any form of 

encryption, and be free of any defects or 

viruses. 

D. Submitting CBI 

Do not submit CBI to EPA through 

http://www.regulations.gov or email. 

Clearly mark the part or all of the 

information that you claim to be CBI. 

For CBI information in a disk or CD 

ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the 

outside of the disk or CD ROM as CBI 

and then identify electronically within 

the disk or CD ROM the specific 

information that is claimed as CBI. In 

addition to one complete version of the 

comment that includes information 

claimed as CBI, a copy of the comment 

that does not contain the information 

claimed as CBI must be submitted for 

inclusion in the public docket. 

Information so marked will not be 

disclosed except in accordance with 

procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2. 

E. Tips for Preparing Your Comments 

When submitting comments, 

remember to: 

• Identify the rulemaking by docket 

number and other identifying 

information (subject heading, Federal 

Register date and page number). 

• Explain why you agree or disagree; 

suggest alternatives and substitute 

language for your requested changes. 

• Describe any assumptions and 

provide any technical information and/ 

or data that you used. 

• If you estimate potential costs or 

burdens, explain how you arrived at 

your estimate in sufficient detail to 

allow for it to be reproduced. 

• Provide specific examples to 

illustrate your concerns, and suggest 

alternatives. 

• Explain your views as clearly as 

possible, avoiding the use of profanity 

or personal threats. 

• Make sure to submit your 

comments by the comment period 

deadline identified. 

F. Public Hearings 

As announced on May 11, 2012, 77 

FR 27671, EPA will hold two public 

hearings at the following dates, times 

and locations to accept oral and written 

comments into the record: 

Date: May 31, 2012. 

Time: Open House: 5:30–6:30 p.m. 

Public Hearing 6:30–8:30 p.m. 

Location: The University of Hawaii, 

Maui College in the Pilina Multipurpose 

Room, 310 W. Kaahumanu Avenue, 

Kahului, Hawaii 96732. 

Date: June 1, 2012. 

Time: Open House: 4:30–5:30 p.m. 

Public Hearing: 5:30–7:30 p.m. 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
31694 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 103 / Tuesday, May 29, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

1 Visual range is the greatest distance, in 

kilometers or miles, at which a dark object can be 

viewed against the sky. 2Areas designated as mandatory Class I Federal 

areas consist of NPs exceeding 6000 acres, 

wilderness areas and national memorial parks 

exceeding 5000 acres, and all international parks 

that were in existence on August 7, 1977. 42 U.S.C. 

7472(a). In accordance with section 169A of the 

CAA, EPA, in consultation with the Department of 

Interior, promulgated a list of 156 areas where 

visibility is identified as an important value. 44 FR 

69122 (November 30, 1979). The extent of a 

mandatory Class I area includes subsequent changes 

in boundaries, such as park expansions. 42 U.S.C. 

7472(a). Although states and tribes may designate 

as Class I additional areas which they consider to 

have visibility as an important value, the 

requirements of the visibility program set forth in 

section 169A of the CAA apply only to ‘‘mandatory 

Class I Federal areas.’’ Each mandatory Class I 

Federal area is the responsibility of a ‘‘Federal Land 

Manager.’’ 42 U.S.C. 7602(i). When we use the term 

‘‘Class I area’’ in this action, we mean a ‘‘mandatory 

Class I Federal area.’’ 

3EPA’s regional haze regulations require 

subsequent updates to the regional haze SIPs. 40 

CFR 51.308(g)–(i). 

Location: Waiakea High School 

Cafeteria, 155 W. Kawili Street, Hilo, 

Hawaii 96720. 

To provide opportunities for 

questions and discussion, EPA will hold 

open houses prior to the public 

hearings. During these open houses, 

EPA staff will be available to informally 

answer questions on our proposed 

action. Any comments made to EPA 

staff during the open houses must still 

be provided formally in writing or orally 

during a public hearing in order to be 

considered in the record. 

The public hearings will provide the 

public with an opportunity to present 

data, views, or arguments concerning 

the proposed Regional Haze FIP for 

Hawaii. EPA may ask clarifying 

questions during the oral presentations, 

but will not respond to the 

presentations at that time. Written 

statements and supporting information 

submitted during the comment period 

will be considered with the same weight 

as any oral comments and supporting 

information presented at the public 

hearing. Please consult sections I.C, I.D. 

and I.E of this preamble for guidance on 

how to submit written comments to 

EPA. 

At the public hearing, the hearing 

officer may limit the time available for 

each commenter to address the proposal 

to five minutes or less if the hearing 

officer determines it is appropriate. Any 

person may provide written or oral 

comments and data pertaining to our 

proposal at the public hearing. We will 

include verbatim transcripts, in English, 

of the hearing and written statements in 

the rulemaking docket. 

II. Background 

A. General Description of Regional Haze 

Regional haze is visibility impairment 

produced by a multitude of sources and 

activities that are located across a broad 

geographic area and emit fine 

particulates (PM2.5) (e.g., sulfates, 

nitrates, organic carbon (OC), elemental 

carbon (EC), and soil dust), and their 

precursors (e.g., sulfur dioxide (SO2), 

nitrogen oxides (NOX), and in some 

cases, ammonia (NH3) and volatile 

organic compounds (VOC)). Fine 

particle precursors react in the 

atmosphere to form PM2.5, which 

impairs visibility by scattering and 

absorbing light. Visibility impairment 

reduces the clarity, color, and visible 

distance that one can see. PM2.5 can also 

cause serious health effects and 

mortality in humans and contributes to 

environmental effects such as acid 

deposition and eutrophication. 

Data from the existing visibility 

monitoring network, the ‘‘Interagency 

Monitoring of Protected Visual 

Environments’’ (IMPROVE) monitoring 

network, show that visibility 

impairment caused by air pollution 

occurs virtually all the time at most 

National Parks (NPs) and wilderness 

areas (WAs). The average visual range 1

in many Class I areas (i.e., NPs and 

memorial parks, WAs, and international 

parks meeting certain size criteria) in 

the western United States is 100–150 

kilometers, or about one-half to twothirds of the visual range that would 

exist without anthropogenic air 

pollution. In most of the eastern Class 

I areas of the United States, the average 

visual range is less than 30 kilometers, 

or about one-fifth of the visual range 

that would exist under estimated 

natural conditions. 64 FR 35715 (July 1, 

1999). 

B. Visibility Protection Requirements of 

the CAA and EPA’s Regulations 

In section 169A of the 1977 

Amendments to the CAA, Congress 

created a program for protecting 

visibility in the nation’s NPs and 

wilderness areas. This section of the 

CAA establishes as a national goal the 

‘‘prevention of any future, and the 

remedying of any existing, impairment 

of visibility in mandatory Class I 

Federal areas 2 which impairment 

results from man-made air pollution.’’ 

On December 2, 1980, EPA promulgated 

regulations to address visibility 

impairment in Class I areas that is 

‘‘reasonably attributable’’ to a single 

source or small group of sources, i.e., 

‘‘reasonably attributable visibility 

impairment.’’ 45 FR 80084 (December 2, 

1980). These regulations represented the 

first phase in addressing visibility 

impairment. EPA deferred action on 

regional haze that emanates from a 

variety of sources until monitoring, 

modeling and scientific knowledge 

about the relationships between 

pollutants and visibility impairment 

were improved. 

As part of the 1990 Amendments to 

the CAA, Congress added section 169B 

to focus attention on regional haze 

issues. EPA promulgated a rule to 

address regional haze on July 1, 1999. 

64 FR 35714 (July 1, 1999), codified at 

40 CFR part 51, subpart P (Regional 

Haze Rule). The primary regulatory 

requirements that address regional haze 

are found at 40 CFR 51.308 and 51.309 

and are summarized below. Under 40 

CFR 51.308(b), all states, the District of 

Columbia and the Virgin Islands are 

required to submit an initial state 

implementation plan (SIP) addressing 

regional haze visibility impairment no 

later than December 17, 2007.3

C. Requirements for Regional Haze 

Implementation Plans 

The Regional Haze Rule (RHR) sets 

out specific requirements for states’ 

initial regional haze implementation 

plans. In particular, each state’s plan 

must establish a long-term strategy that 

ensures reasonable progress (RP) toward 

achieving natural visibility conditions 

in each Class I area affected by the 

emissions from sources within the state. 

In addition, for each Class I area within 

the state’s boundaries, the plan must 

establish a reasonable progress goal 

(RPG) for the first planning period that 

ends on July 31, 2018. The long-term 

strategy must include enforceable 

emission limits and other measures as 

necessary to achieve the RPG. Regional 

haze plans must also give specific 

attention to certain stationary sources 

that were in existence on August 7, 

1977, but were not in operation before 

August 7, 1962. These sources, where 

appropriate, are required to install Best 

Available Retrofit Technology (BART) 

controls to eliminate or reduce visibility 

impairment. The specific regional haze 

plan requirements are summarized 

below. 

1. Determination of Baseline, Natural 

and Current Visibility Conditions 

The RHR establishes the deciview 

(dv) as the principal metric for 

measuring visibility. This visibility 

metric expresses uniform changes in 

haziness in terms of common 

increments across the entire range of 

visibility conditions, from pristine to 

extremely hazy conditions. Visibility 

expressed in deciviews is determined by 

using air quality measurements to 

estimate light extinction and then 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 103 / Tuesday, May 29, 2012 / Proposed Rules 31695 

4The preamble to the RHR provides additional 

details about the deciview. 64 FR 35714, 35725 

(July 1, 1999). 

5See ‘‘Guidance for Estimating Natural Visibility 

Conditions Under the Regional Haze Rule 

(September 2003) and ‘‘Guidance for Tracking 

Progress Under the Regional Haze Rule (September 

2003) for further information. 

6The set of ‘‘major stationary sources’’ potentially 

subject to BART is listed in CAA section 169A(g)(7). 

transforming the value of light 

extinction to deciviews using a 

logarithmic function. The deciview is a 

more useful measure for tracking 

progress in improving visibility than 

light extinction because each deciview 

change is an equal incremental change 

in visibility as perceived by the human 

eye.4

The deciview is used to express 

reasonable progress goals, define 

visibility conditions and track changes 

in visibility. To track changes in 

visibility at each of the 156 Class I areas 

covered by the visibility program (40 

CFR 81.401–437), and as part of the 

process for determining reasonable 

progress, states must calculate the 

degree of existing visibility impairment 

at each Class I area and periodically 

review progress midway through each 

ten-year implementation period. To do 

this, the RHR requires states to 

determine the degree of impairment (in 

deciviews) for the average of the 20 

percent least impaired (‘‘best’’) and 20 

percent most impaired (‘‘worst’’) 

visibility days over a specified time 

period at each of their Class I areas. In 

addition, states must develop an 

estimate of natural visibility conditions 

for the purpose of comparing progress 

toward the national goal. Natural 

visibility is determined by estimating 

the natural concentrations of pollutants 

that cause visibility impairment and 

then calculating total light extinction 

based on those estimates.5

For the first regional haze SIPs that 

were due by December 17, 2007, 

‘‘baseline visibility conditions’’ are the 

starting points for assessing ‘‘current’’ 

visibility impairment. Baseline visibility 

conditions represent the degree of 

visibility impairment for the 20 percent 

least impaired days and 20 percent most 

impaired days for each calendar year 

from 2000 to 2004. Using monitoring 

data for 2000 through 2004, states are 

required to calculate the average degree 

of visibility impairment for each Class I 

area, based on the average of annual 

values over the five-year period. The 

comparison of initial baseline visibility 

conditions to natural visibility 

conditions indicates the amount of 

improvement necessary to attain natural 

visibility, while the future comparison 

of baseline conditions to the then 

current conditions will indicate the 

amount of progress. In general, the 

2000–2004 baseline period is 

considered the time from which 

improvement in visibility is measured. 

2. Determination of Reasonable Progress 

Goals 

The vehicle for ensuring continuing 

progress towards achieving the natural 

visibility goal is the submission of a 

series of regional haze SIPs that 

establish two RPGs (i.e., two distinct 

goals, one for the ‘‘best’’ and one for the 

‘‘worst’’ days) for every Class I area for 

each (approximately) ten-year 

implementation period. The RHR does 

not mandate specific milestones or rates 

of progress, but instead calls for states 

to establish goals that provide for 

‘‘reasonable progress’’ toward achieving 

natural (i.e., ‘‘background’’) visibility 

conditions. In setting RPGs, states must 

provide for an improvement in visibility 

for the most impaired days over the 

(approximately) ten-year period of the 

SIP, and ensure no degradation in 

visibility for the least impaired days 

over the same period. 

States have significant discretion in 

establishing RPGs, but are required to 

consider the following factors 

established in section 169A of the CAA 

and in EPA’s RHR at 40 CFR 

51.308(d)(1)(i)(A): (1) The costs of 

compliance; (2) the time necessary for 

compliance; (3) the energy and non-air 

quality environmental impacts of 

compliance; and (4) the remaining 

useful life of any potentially affected 

sources. States must demonstrate in 

their SIPs how these factors are 

considered when selecting the RPGs for 

the best and worst days for each 

applicable Class I area. States have 

considerable flexibility in how they take 

these factors into consideration, as 

noted in EPA’s Guidance for Setting 

Reasonable Progress Goals under the 

Regional Haze Program (June 1, 2007) 

(pp. 4–2, 5–1) (‘‘EPA’s Reasonable 

Progress Guidance’’). In setting the 

RPGs, states must also consider the rate 

of progress needed to reach natural 

visibility conditions by 2064 (referred to 

as the ‘‘uniform rate of progress’’ (URP) 

or the ‘‘glide path’’) and the emission 

reduction measures needed to achieve 

that rate of progress over the ten-year 

period of the SIP. Uniform progress 

towards achievement of natural 

conditions by the year 2064 represents 

a rate of progress that states are to use 

for analytical comparison to the amount 

of progress they expect to achieve. In 

setting RPGs, each state with one or 

more Class I areas (‘‘Class I state’’) must 

also consult with potentially 

‘‘contributing states,’’ i.e., other nearby 

states with emission sources that may be 

affecting visibility impairment at the 

Class I state’s areas. 40 CFR 

51.308(d)(1)(iv). 

3. Best Available Retrofit Technology 

Section 169A of the CAA directs 

states to evaluate the use of retrofit 

controls at certain larger, often 

uncontrolled, older stationary sources in 

order to address visibility impacts from 

these sources. Specifically, section 

169A(b)(2)(A) of the CAA requires states 

to revise their SIPs to contain such 

measures as may be necessary to make 

reasonable progress towards the natural 

visibility goal, including a requirement 

that certain categories of existing major 

stationary sources 6 built between 1962 

and 1977 procure, install, and operate 

the ‘‘Best Available Retrofit 

Technology’’ as determined by the state. 

Under the RHR, states are directed to 

conduct BART determinations for such 

‘‘BART-eligible’’ sources that may be 

anticipated to cause or contribute to any 

visibility impairment in a Class I area. 

Rather than requiring source-specific 

BART controls, states also have the 

flexibility to adopt an emissions trading 

program or other alternative program as 

long as the alternative provides greater 

reasonable progress towards improving 

visibility than BART. 

On July 6, 2005, EPA published the 

Guidelines for BART Determinations 

under the Regional Haze Rule at 

Appendix Y to 40 CFR part 51 

(hereinafter referred to as the ‘‘BART 

Guidelines’’) to assist states in 

determining which of their sources 

should be subject to the BART 

requirements and in determining 

appropriate emission limits for each 

such ‘‘subject-to-BART’’ source. States 

are required to use the approach set 

forth in the BART Guidelines in making 

a BART determination for fossil fuelfired electric generating plants with a 

total generating capacity in excess of 

750 megawatts. States are encouraged, 

but not required, to follow the BART 

Guidelines in making BART 

determinations for other types of 

sources. 

States must address all visibilityimpairing pollutants emitted by a source 

in the BART determination process. The 

most significant visibility impairing 

pollutants are SO2, NOX and PM. EPA 

has indicated that states should use 

their best judgment in determining 

whether VOC or NH3 compounds impair 

visibility in Class I areas. 

In their SIPs, states must identify 

potential BART sources, described in 

the RHR as ‘‘BART-eligible sources.’’ 40 

CFR 51.308(e)(1)(i). A BART-eligible 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
31696 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 103 / Tuesday, May 29, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

source is an existing stationary source in 

any of 26 listed categories which meets 

criteria for startup dates and potential 

emissions. See 40 CFR 51.301 and 40 

CFR part 51, Appendix Y, § II. Each 

BART-eligible source that ‘‘emits any air 

pollutant which may reasonably be 

anticipated to cause or contribute to any 

impairment of visibility in any 

mandatory Class I Federal area’’ is 

subject to BART. 40 CFR 51.308(e)(1)(ii). 

The BART Guidelines allow states to 

select an exemption threshold value for 

their BART modeling, below which a 

BART-eligible source would not be 

expected to cause or contribute to 

visibility impairment in any Class I area. 

The Guidelines provide that: 

A single source that is responsible for a 1.0 

deciview change or more should be 

considered to ‘‘cause’’ visibility impairment; 

a source that causes less than a 1.0 deciview 

change may still contribute to visibility 

impairment and thus be subject to BART. 

Because of varying circumstances affecting 

different Class I areas, the appropriate 

threshold for determining whether a source 

‘‘contributes to any visibility impairment’’ for 

the purposes of BART may reasonably differ 

across States. As a general matter, any 

threshold that you use for determining 

whether a source ‘‘contributes’’ to visibility 

impairment should not be higher than 0.5 

deciviews. 

40 CFR part 51, Appendix Y, § III.A.1. 

The state must document its exemption 

threshold value in the SIP and must 

state the basis for its selection of that 

value. Any source with emissions that 

model above the threshold value is 

subject to BART and must therefore 

undergo a BART control analysis. 

In making BART determinations, 

section 169A(g)(2) of the CAA requires 

that states consider the following 

factors: (1) The costs of compliance; (2) 

the energy and non-air quality 

environmental impacts of compliance; 

(3) any existing pollution control 

technology in use at the source; (4) the 

remaining useful life of the source; and 

(5) the degree of improvement in 

visibility which may reasonably be 

anticipated to result from the use of 

such technology. States are free to 

determine the weight and significance 

assigned to each factor, but all five 

factors must be considered. The BART 

Guidelines provide further detail about 

how to analyze these factors. 

Once a state has made its BART 

determination, the BART controls must 

be installed and operated as 

expeditiously as practicable, but no later 

than five years after the date EPA 

approves the regional haze SIP. CAA 

section 169(g)(4), 40 CFR 

51.308(e)(1)(iv). In addition to what is 

required by the RHR, general SIP 

requirements mandate that the SIP must 

also include all regulatory requirements 

related to monitoring, recordkeeping 

and reporting for the BART controls on 

the source. 

4. Long-Term Strategy 

Consistent with the requirement in 

section 169A(b) of the CAA that states 

include in their regional haze SIP a tento fifteen-year strategy for making 

reasonable progress, section 51.308(d)(3) 

of the RHR requires that states include 

a long-term strategy (LTS) in their 

regional haze SIPs. The LTS is the 

compilation of all control measures a 

state will use during the 

implementation period of the specific 

SIP submittal to meet applicable RPGs. 

The LTS must include ‘‘enforceable 

emissions limitations, compliance 

schedules, and other measures needed 

to achieve the reasonable progress 

goals’’ for all Class I areas within and 

affected by emissions from the state. 40 

CFR 51.308(d)(3). 

When a state’s emissions are 

reasonably anticipated to cause or 

contribute to visibility impairment in a 

Class I area located in another state, the 

RHR requires the downwind state to 

coordinate with contributing states to 

develop coordinated emissions 

management strategies. 40 CFR 

51.308(d)(3)(i). In such cases, the 

contributing state must demonstrate that 

it has included in its SIP, all measures 

necessary to obtain its share of the 

emission reductions needed to meet the 

RPGs for the Class I area. 

States should consider all types of 

anthropogenic sources of visibility 

impairment in developing their LTS, 

including stationary, minor, mobile, and 

area sources. At a minimum, states must 

describe how each of the following 

seven factors listed below are taken into 

account in developing their LTS: (1) 

Emission reductions due to ongoing air 

pollution control programs, including 

measures to address RAVI; (2) measures 

to mitigate the impacts of construction 

activities; (3) emissions limitations and 

schedules for compliance to achieve the 

RPG; (4) source retirement and 

replacement schedules; (5) smoke 

management techniques for agricultural 

and forestry management purposes 

including plans as currently exist 

within the state for these purposes; (6) 

enforceability of emissions limitations 

and control measures; and, (7) the 

anticipated net effect on visibility due to 

projected changes in point, area, and 

mobile source emissions over the period 

addressed by the LTS. 40 CFR 

51.308(d)(3)(v). 

5. Coordination of the Regional Haze 

SIP and Reasonably Attributable 

Visibility Impairment 

As part of the RHR, EPA revised 40 

CFR 51.306(c) regarding the long-term 

strategy for RAVI to require that the 

RAVI plan must provide for a periodic 

review and SIP revision not less 

frequently than every three years until 

the date of submission of the state’s first 

plan addressing regional haze visibility 

impairment, which was due December 

17, 2007, in accordance with 40 CFR 

51.308(b) and (c). On or before this date, 

the state must revise its plan to provide 

for review and revision of a coordinated 

LTS for addressing RAVI and regional 

haze, and the state must submit the first 

such coordinated LTS with its first 

regional haze SIP. Future coordinated 

LTSs, and periodic progress reports 

evaluating progress towards RPGs, must 

be submitted consistent with the 

schedule for SIP submission and 

periodic progress reports set forth in 40 

CFR 51.308(f) and 51.308(g), 

respectively. The periodic review of a 

state’s LTS must report on both regional 

haze and RAVI impairment and must be 

submitted to EPA as a SIP revision. 

6. Monitoring Strategy 

Section 51.308(d)(4) of the RHR 

requires a monitoring strategy for 

measuring, characterizing, and reporting 

on regional haze visibility impairment 

that is representative of all mandatory 

Class I areas within the state. The 

strategy must be coordinated with the 

monitoring strategy required in 40 CFR 

51.305 for RAVI. Compliance with this 

requirement may be met through 

‘‘participation’’ in the Interagency 

Monitoring of Protected Visual 

Environments (IMPROVE) network, i.e., 

review and use of monitoring data from 

the network. The monitoring strategy is 

due with the first regional haze SIP, and 

it must be reviewed every five years. 

The monitoring strategy must also 

provide for additional monitoring sites 

if the IMPROVE network is not 

sufficient to determine whether RPGs 

will be met. The SIP must also provide 

for the following: 

• Procedures for using monitoring 

data and other information in a state 

with mandatory Class I areas to 

determine the contribution of emissions 

from within the state to regional haze 

visibility impairment at Class I areas 

both within and outside the state; 

• Procedures for using monitoring 

data and other information in a state 

with no mandatory Class I areas to 

determine the contribution of emissions 

from within the state to regional haze 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 103 / Tuesday, May 29, 2012 / Proposed Rules 31697 

visibility impairment at Class I areas in 

other states; 

• Reporting of all visibility 

monitoring data to the Administrator at 

least annually for each Class I area in 

the state, and where possible, in 

electronic format; 

• Developing a statewide inventory of 

emissions of pollutants that are 

reasonably anticipated to cause or 

contribute to visibility impairment in 

any Class I area. The inventory must 

include emissions for a baseline year, 

emissions for the most recent year for 

which data are available, and estimates 

of future projected emissions. A state 

must also make a commitment to update 

the inventory periodically; and, 

• Other elements, including 

reporting, recordkeeping, and other 

measures necessary to assess and report 

on visibility. 

7. SIP Revisions and Progress Reports 

The RHR requires control strategies to 

cover an initial implementation period 

through 2018, with a comprehensive 

reassessment and revision of those 

strategies, as appropriate, every ten 

years thereafter. Periodic SIP revisions 

must meet the core requirements of 

section 51.308(d) with the exception of 

BART. The requirement to evaluate 

sources for BART applies only to the 

first regional haze SIP. Facilities subject 

to BART must continue to comply with 

the BART provisions of section 

51.308(e), as noted above. Periodic SIP 

revisions will assure that the statutory 

requirement of reasonable progress will 

continue to be met. 

Each state also is required to submit 

a report to EPA every five years that 

evaluates progress toward achieving the 

RPG for each Class I area within the 

state and outside the state if affected by 

emissions from within the state. 40 CFR 

51.308(g). The first progress report is 

due five years from submittal of the 

initial regional haze SIP revision. At the 

same time a five-year progress report is 

submitted, a state must determine the 

adequacy of its existing SIP to achieve 

the established goals for visibility 

improvement. 40 CFR 51.308(h). The 

RHR contains more detailed 

requirements associated with these parts 

of the Rule. 

8. Coordination With Federal Land 

Managers 

The RHR requires that states consult 

with Federal Land Managers (FLMs) 

before adopting and submitting their 

SIPs. 40 CFR 51.308(i). States must 

provide FLMs an opportunity for 

consultation, in person and at least sixty 

days prior to holding any public hearing 

on the SIP. This consultation must 

include the opportunity for the FLMs to 

discuss their assessment of impairment 

of visibility in any Class I area and to 

offer recommendations on the 

development of the RPGs and on the 

development and implementation of 

strategies to address visibility 

impairment. Furthermore, a state must 

include in its SIP a description of how 

it addressed any comments provided by 

the FLMs. Finally, a SIP must provide 

procedures for continuing consultation 

between the state and FLMs regarding 

the state’s visibility protection program, 

including development and review of 

SIP revisions, five-year progress reports, 

and the implementation of other 

programs having the potential to 

contribute to impairment of visibility in 

Class I areas. 

D. Roles of Agencies in Addressing 

Regional Haze 

Successful implementation of the 

regional haze program will require longterm regional coordination among 

states, tribal governments and various 

federal agencies. As noted above, 

pollution affecting the air quality in 

Class I areas can be transported over 

long distances, even hundreds of 

kilometers. Therefore, to effectively 

address the problem of visibility 

impairment in Class I areas, states need 

to develop strategies in coordination 

with one another, taking into account 

the effect of emissions from one 

jurisdiction on the air quality in 

another. 

Because the pollutants that lead to 

regional haze can originate from sources 

located across broad geographic areas, 

EPA has encouraged the states and 

tribes across the United States to 

address visibility impairment from a 

regional perspective. Five regional 

planning organizations (RPOs) were 

developed to address regional haze and 

related issues. The RPOs first evaluated 

technical information to better 

understand how their states and tribes 

impact Class I areas across the country, 

and then pursued the development of 

regional strategies to reduce emissions 

of particulate matter (PM) and other 

pollutants leading to regional haze. 

The Western Regional Air Partnership 

(WRAP) RPO is a collaborative effort of 

state governments, tribal governments, 

and various federal agencies established 

to initiate and coordinate activities 

associated with the management of 

regional haze, visibility and other air 

quality issues in the western United 

States. WRAP member State 

governments include: Alaska, Arizona, 

California, Colorado, Hawaii, Idaho, 

Montana, New Mexico, North Dakota, 

Oregon, South Dakota, Utah, 

Washington, and Wyoming. Tribal 

members include Campo Band of 

Kumeyaay Indians, Confederated Salish 

and Kootenai Tribes, Cortina Indian 

Rancheria, Hopi Tribe, Hualapai Nation 

of the Grand Canyon, Native Village of 

Shungnak, Nez Perce Tribe, Northern 

Cheyenne Tribe, Pueblo of Acoma, 

Pueblo of San Felipe, and ShoshoneBannock Tribes of Fort Hall. 

E. EPA’s Authority To Promulgate a FIP 

EPA made a finding of failure to 

submit on January 15, 2009 (74 FR 

2392), determining that Hawaii failed to 

submit a SIP that addressed any of the 

required regional haze SIP elements of 

40 CFR 51.308. Under section 110(c) of 

the Act, whenever we find that a State 

has failed to make a required 

submission we are required to 

promulgate a FIP. Specifically, section 

110(c) provides: 

(1) The Administrator shall promulgate a 

Federal implementation plan at any time 

within 2 years after the Administrator— 

(A) finds that a State has failed to make a 

required submission or finds that the plan or 

plan revision submitted by the State does not 

satisfy the minimum criteria established 

under [section 110(k)(1)(A)], or 

(B) disapproves a State implementation 

plan submission in whole or in part, unless 

the State corrects the deficiency, and the 

Administrator approves the plan or plan 

revision, before the Administrator 

promulgates such Federal implementation 

plan. 

Section 302(y) defines the term ‘‘Federal 

implementation plan’’ in pertinent part, 

as: 

[A] plan (or portion thereof) promulgated 

by the Administrator to fill all or a portion 

of a gap or otherwise correct all or a portion 

of an inadequacy in a State implementation 

plan, and which includes enforceable 

emission limitations or other control 

measures, means or techniques (including 

economic incentives, such as marketable 

permits or auctions or emissions allowances) 

* * *. 

Thus, because we determined that 

Hawaii failed to submit a Regional Haze 

SIP, we are required to promulgate a 

Regional Haze FIP. 

III. Proposed Implementation Plan To 

Address Regional Haze in Hawaii 

A. Affected Class I Areas 

In accordance with 40 CFR 51.308(d), 

we have identified two Class I areas 

within Hawaii: Hawaii Volcanoes NP on 

the Island of Hawaii, and Haleakala NP 

on the Island of Maui. EPA is 

responsible for developing RPGs for 

these two Class I areas. EPA has also 

determined that emissions from sources 

in Hawaii are not reasonably expected 

to have impacts at Class I areas in other 

states. See section III.G.1 below. 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
31698 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 103 / Tuesday, May 29, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

7 Information presented here is based on the 

IMPROVE data presented at the WRAP Technical 

Support System (TSS) (http://vista.cira.colostate.

edu/tss/). This information is available in the 

docket in the document titled ‘‘Technical Support 

Document for the Proposed Action on the Federal 

Implementation Plan for the Regional Haze Program 

in the State of Hawaii,’’ Air Division, EPA Region 

9, May 14, 2012 [hereinafter ‘‘FIP TSD’’]. 

8Since visibility conditions are expressed in 

terms of deciviews (dv), changes in visibility 

conditions are typically expressed in terms of 

‘‘delta deciviews’’ or ‘‘delta dv.’’ 9 Guidance for Estimating Natural Visibility 

Conditions Under the Regional Haze Rule, 

September 2003 EPA–454/B–03–005, Appendix B 

Default Natural bext, dv, and 10th and 90th 

Percentile dv Values at All Mandatory Federal Class 

I Areas. 

10The IMPROVE program is a cooperative 

measurement effort governed by a steering 

committee composed of representatives from 

Federal agencies (including representatives from 

EPA and the FLMs) and RPOs. The IMPROVE 

monitoring program was established in 1985 to aid 

the creation of Federal and State implementation 

plans for the protection of visibility in Class I areas. 

One of the objectives of IMPROVE is to identify 

chemical species and emission sources responsible 

for existing anthropogenic visibility impairment. 

The IMPROVE program has also been a key 

instrument in visibility-related research, including 

the advancement of monitoring instrumentation, 

analysis techniques, visibility modeling, policy 

formulation and source attribution field studies. 

B. Baseline Visibility, Natural Visibility, 

and Uniform Rate of Progress 

As required by section 51.308(d)(2)(i) 

of the Regional Haze Rule and in 

accordance with our 2003 Natural 

Visibility Guidance, EPA calculated 

baseline/current and natural visibility 

conditions for the two Hawaii Class I 

areas, Hawaii Volcanoes NP and 

Haleakala NP, on the most impaired and 

least impaired days, as summarized 

below.7 The natural visibility 

conditions, baseline visibility 

conditions, and visibility impact 

reductions needed to achieve the 

Uniform Rate of Progress (URP) in 2018 

for each of the two Hawaii Class I areas 

are presented in Table 1 and further 

explained in this section. 

TABLE 1—VISIBILITY IMPACT REDUCTIONS NEEDED BASED ON BEST AND WORST DAYS BASELINES, NATURAL

CONDITIONS, AND UNIFORM RATE OF PROGRESS FOR HAWAII CLASS I AREAS

Hawaii class I area 

20% Worst days 20% Best 

days 

2001–2004 

baseline (dv) 2018 URP (dv) 

2018 Reduction needed 

(delta dv) 8

2064 Natural 

conditions (dv) 

2000–2004 

Baseline (dv) 2064 Natural 

conditions (dv) 

Hawaii Volcanoes NP .............................. 18.9 16.2 2.7 7.2 4.1 2.2 

Haleakala NP ........................................... 13.3 11.9 1.4 7.4 4.6 2.7 

1. Estimating Natural Visibility 

Conditions 

Natural background visibility, as 

defined in our 2003 Natural Visibility 

Guidance, is estimated by calculating 

the expected light extinction using 

default estimates of natural 

concentrations of fine particle 

components adjusted by site-specific 

estimates of humidity. This calculation 

uses the IMPROVE equation, which is a 

formula for estimating light extinction 

from the estimated natural 

concentrations of fine particle 

components (or from components 

measured by the IMPROVE monitors). 

As documented in our 2003 Natural 

Visibility Guidance,9 EPA allows the 

use of ‘‘refined’’ or alternative 

approaches to this guidance to estimate 

the values that characterize the natural 

visibility conditions of Class I areas. 

One alternative approach is to develop 

and justify the use of alternative 

estimates of natural concentrations of 

fine particle components. Another 

alternative is to use the ‘‘new IMPROVE 

equation’’ that was adopted for use by 

the IMPROVE Steering Committee in 

December 2005 and the Natural 

Conditions II algorithm that was 

finalized in May 2007.10 The purpose of 

this refinement to the ‘‘old IMPROVE 

equation’’ is to provide more accurate 

estimates of the various factors that 

affect the calculation of light extinction. 

For the two Class I Areas in Hawaii, 

EPA opted to use WRAP calculations in 

which the default estimates for the 

natural conditions (see Table 2) were 

combined with the ‘‘new IMPROVE 

equation’’ and the Natural Conditions II 

algorithm (see Table 3). This is an 

acceptable approach under our 2003 

Natural Visibility Guidance. Table 2 

shows the default natural visibility 

values for the 20% worst days and 20% 

best days. 

TABLE 2—DEFAULT NATURAL VISIBILITY VALUES FOR THE 20% BEST DAYS AND 20% WORST DAYS

Class I area 20% Worst 

days (dv) 

20% Best 

days (dv) 

Hawaii Volcanoes NP .............................................................................................................................................. 7.47 2.35 

Haleakala NP ........................................................................................................................................................... 7.27 2.15 

EPA also referred to WRAP 

calculations using the new IMPROVE 

equation. Table 3 shows the natural 

visibility values for each Class I Area for 

the 20% worst days and 20% best days 

using the new IMPROVE Equation and 

Natural Conditions II algorithm. 

TABLE 3—NATURAL VISIBILITY VALUES FOR THE 20% BEST DAYS AND 20% WORST DAYS USING THE NEW IMPROVE 

EQUATION 11

Class I area 20% Worst 

days (dv) 

20% Best 

days (dv) 

Hawaii Volcanoes NP .............................................................................................................................................. 7.2 2.2 

Haleakala NP ........................................................................................................................................................... 7.4 2.7 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 103 / Tuesday, May 29, 2012 / Proposed Rules 31699 

11S. Copeland, M. Pitchford, R. Ames, ‘‘Regional 

Haze Rule Natural Level Estimates Using the 

Revised IMPROVE Aerosol Reconstruction Light 

Extinction Algorithm’’; http://vista.cira.

colostate.edu/improve/publications/graylit/032_

NaturalCondIIpaper/Copeland_etal_Natural

ConditionsII_Description.pdf. 

12The science behind the revised IMPROVE 

equation is summarized in our FIP TSD, in the TSD 

for Technical Products Prepared by the WRAP in 

Support of Western Regional Haze Plans (‘‘WRAP 

TSD’’), February 28, 2011, and in numerous 

published papers. See for example: Hand, J.L., and 

Malm, W.C., 2006, Review of the IMPROVE 

Equation for Estimating Ambient Light Extinction 

Coefficients—Final Report. March 2006. Prepared 

for IMPROVE, Colorado State University, 

Cooperative Institute for Research in the 

Atmosphere, Fort Collins, Colorado, and Pitchford, 

Marc., 2006, Natural Haze Levels II: Application of 

the New IMPROVE Algorithm to Natural Species 

Concentrations Estimates. Final Report of the 

Natural Haze Levels II Committee to the RPO 

Monitoring/Data Analysis Workgroup. September 

2006. 

13The amount of light lost as it travels over one 

million meters. The haze index, in units of 

deciviews, is calculated directly from the total light 

extinction, bext expressed in inverse megameters 

(Mm¥1), as follows: HI = 10 ln(bext/10). 

The new IMPROVE equation takes 

into account the most recent review of 

the science 12 and accounts for the effect 

of particle size distribution on light 

extinction efficiency of sulfate, nitrate, 

and organic carbon (OC). It also adjusts 

the mass multiplier for OC (particulate 

organic matter) by increasing it from 1.4 

to 1.8. New terms were added to the 

equation to account for light extinction 

by sea salt and light absorption by 

gaseous nitrogen dioxide. Site-specific 

values are used for Rayleigh scattering 

(scattering of light due to atmospheric 

gases) to account for the site-specific 

effects of elevation and temperature. 

Separate relative humidity enhancement 

factors are used for small and large size 

distributions of ammonium sulfate and 

ammonium nitrate and for sea salt. The 

terms for the remaining contributors, EC 

(light-absorbing carbon), fine soil, and 

coarse mass terms, do not change 

between the original and new IMPROVE 

equations. 

The natural visibility value 

estimations for 2064 do not include an 

estimate of the visibility impairment 

from the emissions from the Kilauea 

volcano, which is located in the Hawaii 

Volcanoes NP. The emissions from the 

volcano vary from year to year, and it 

is not possible to estimate the emissions 

from the volcano or the effect they will 

have on Class I area visibility in the year 

2064. Therefore, in estimating natural 

conditions for purposes of this first 

planning period, we have assumed that 

there will be no visibility impact from 

the volcano. 

2. Estimating Baseline Conditions 

As required by section 51.308(d)(2)(i) 

of the Regional Haze Rule and in 

accordance with our 2003 Natural 

Visibility Guidance, EPA calculated 

baseline visibility conditions for Hawaii 

Volcanoes NP and Haleakala NP. The 

baseline condition calculation begins 

with the calculation of light extinction, 

using the IMPROVE equation. The 

IMPROVE equation sums the light 

extinction 13 resulting from individual 

pollutants, such as sulfates and nitrates. 

As with the natural visibility conditions 

calculation, EPA chose to use the new 

IMPROVE equation. 

The period for establishing baseline 

visibility conditions is 2000 through 

2004, and baseline conditions must be 

calculated using available monitoring 

data. 40 CFR 51.308(d)(2). This FIP 

proposes to use visibility monitoring 

data collected by IMPROVE monitors 

located in the two Hawaii Class I areas 

for the years 2001 through 2004 and the 

resulting baseline conditions represent 

an average for 2001 through 2004. A 

complete year of monitoring data was 

not available for 2000; therefore, data 

from 2000 were not included in the 

baseline calculations. Table 4 shows the 

baseline conditions for the two Class I 

areas. 

TABLE 4—BASELINE CONDITIONS ON 20% WORST DAYS AND 20% BEST DAYS

Class I area 

20% Worst 

days 

(deciview) 

20% Best 

days 

(deciview) 

Hawaii Volcanoes NP .............................................................................................................................................. 18.9 4.1 

Haleakala NP ........................................................................................................................................................... 13.3 4.6 

3. Summary of Baseline and Natural 

Conditions 

To address the requirements of 40 

CFR 51.308(d)(2)(iv)(A), EPA also 

calculated the number of deciviews by 

which baseline conditions exceed 

natural visibility conditions at each 

Class I area. Table 5 shows the number 

of deciviews by which baseline 

conditions exceed natural visibility 

conditions at each Class I area. 

TABLE 5—NUMBER OF DECIVIEWS BY WHICH BASELINE CONDITIONS EXCEED NATURAL VISIBILITY CONDITIONS

Class I area 20% Worst 

days 

20% Best 

days 

Hawaii Volcanoes NP .............................................................................................................................................. 11.7 1.9 

Haleakala NP ........................................................................................................................................................... 5.8 1.9 

4. Uniform Rate of Progress 

In setting the RPGs, EPA reviewed the 

IMPROVE data to analyze and 

determine the URP needed to reach 

natural visibility conditions by the year 

2064. In so doing, the analysis 

compared the baseline visibility 

conditions in each Class I area to the 

natural visibility conditions in each 

Class I area (as described above) and 

determined the URP needed in order to 

attain natural visibility conditions by 

2064 in the two Class I areas. The 

analysis constructed the URP consistent 

with the requirements of the Regional 

Haze Rule and consistent with our 2003 

Tracking Progress Guidance by plotting 

a straight line from the baseline level of 

visibility impairment for 2000 through 

2004 to the level of visibility conditions 

representing no anthropogenic 

impairment in 2064 for each Class I 

area. The URPs are summarized in Table 

6. The degree of improvement to meet 

the URP at these sites is 1.4 deciviews 

at Haleakala NP and 2.7 deciviews at 

Hawaii Volcanoes NP. 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
31700 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 103 / Tuesday, May 29, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

14Additional data and information can be found 

at: http://views.cira.colostate.edu/web/DataFiles/ 

SummaryDataFiles.aspx. 15 Data from the Haleakala Monitor (HALE1), 

located outside Haleakala NP. 16Comparison of Haleakala National Park HALE1 

and HACR1 IMPROVE Monitoring Site 2007–2008 

Data Sets, March 30, 2012, State of Hawaii, 

Department of Health, Clean Air Branch. 17Review of VIEWS2.0 2009–2010 Haleakala 

National Park Organic and Elemental Carbon Data, 

March 30, 2012, State of Hawaii, Department of 

Health, Clean Air Branch. 

18Memorandum from Lydia N. Wegman, ‘‘2002 

Base Year Emission Inventory SIP Planning: 8-Hour 

Ozone, PM2.5 and Regional Haze Programs’’ 

(November 18, 2002). 

19Email from Priscilla Ligh, Hawaii DOH, to 

Gregg Nudd, EPA, May 3, 2012. 

20Sections II.A.4 and II.B.4 of the FIP TSD. 

21 ‘‘Final Emission Inventory Report: Data 

Population for Air System for Hawaii Emissions 

Data (AirSHED),’’ Environ International 

Corporation, April 12, 2010. 

22See email from Priscilla Ligh, HI DOH to Greg 

Nudd, USEPA, on November 18, 2011 and 

associated document: ‘‘RevA Emissions inventory 

response to EPA 11–17–11 for EPA.doc’’ The 

document also explains any differences between the 

Hawaii DOH numbers and the emissions inventory 

in the National Emission Inventory for Hawaii. 

TABLE 6—SUMMARY OF UNIFORM RATE OF PROGRESS FOR 20% WORST DAYS

Class I area Baseline 

condition (dv) 

Natural 

visibility (dv) 

Total 

improvement 

by 2064 (dv) 

URP (dv/year) 

2018 URP 

visibility level 

(dv) 

Improvement 

by 2018 (dv) 

Hawaii Volcanoes NP .............................. 18.9 7.2 11.7 0.19 16.2 2.7 

Haleakala NP ........................................... 13.3 7.5 5.8 0.09 11.9 1.4 

5. Contribution Assessment According 

to IMPROVE Monitoring Data 

The visibility and pollutant 

contributions on the 20% worst 

visibility days for the baseline period 

(2000–2004) show variation across the 

two Class I areas in Hawaii. Table 7 

shows average data from the IMPROVE 

monitors for 2001 through 2004.14 The 

table shows light extinction from 

specific pollutants as well as total 

extinction, as determined by the 

monitoring data. As stated above, these 

data provide further detail regarding the 

variation across the two Class I areas in 

Hawaii. 

TABLE 7—SPECIES-SPECIFIC LIGHT EXTINCTION FOR THE 20% WORST DAYS, DETERMINED FROM 2001–2004 

MONITORING DATA

Class I area Sulfate % Nitrate % Organic 

carbon % 

Elemental 

carbon % Soil % Sea salt % Coarse mass % 

Hawaii Volcanoes NP 

(18.9 deciviews) ....... 90 1 4 1 1 1 1 

Haleakala NP15 (13.3 

deciviews) ................. 61 9 10 5 1 4 9 

The visibility on the 20% worst days 

was 18.9 deciviews at Hawaii Volcanoes 

NP. Sulfate is the largest contributor to 

visibility impairment at the park, with 

the volcano contributing substantially to 

the impact. The visibility on the 20% 

worst days at Haleakala NP was 13.3 

deciviews. Sulfate is the largest 

contributor to visibility impairment at 

Haleakala NP, with the volcano 

contributing to the impact, although to 

a lesser extent than at the Hawaii 

Volcanoes NP. Nitrate from 

anthropogenic and natural sources 

contributes to 9% of the visibility 

degradation at the park. Coarse mass 

also contributes to about 9% of the 

visibility degradation at the park. 

Organic carbon contributes to 10% 

and elemental carbon contributes to 5% 

of the visibility impairment at the 

current monitoring site (HALE1), which 

is located outside the park. However, 

more recent data measured at the 

Haleakala Crater site (HACR1) site at the 

Haleakala National Park Border shows 

lower concentrations of organic and 

elemental carbon than the HALE1 

monitoring site.16 17

C. Hawaii Emissions Inventories 

1. Statewide Emissions Inventories 

40 CFR 51.308(d)(4)(v) requires that 

EPA maintain a statewide inventory of 

emissions of pollutants that are 

reasonably anticipated to cause or 

contribute to visibility impairment in 

any mandatory Class I Federal area. The 

inventory must include emissions for a 

baseline year, emissions for the most 

recent year for which data are available, 

and estimates of future projected 

emissions. The Regional Haze Rule does 

not specify the baseline year for the 

inventory, but EPA has recommended 

that 2002 be used as the inventory base 

year.18 2002 is generally appropriate as 

the baseline year for Regional Haze SIPs 

because it corresponds with the 2000– 

2004 period for establishing baseline 

visibility conditions, based on available 

ambient monitoring data, pursuant to 

40 CFR 51.308(d)(2)(i). 

For this first Hawaii Regional Haze 

implementation plan, Hawaii DOH 

initially selected 2005 as their base year 

because it was the most recent year with 

a full inventory when they began their 

technical work.19 Since 2005 is not 

within the baseline period of 2000– 

2004, EPA has performed a comparison 

of the aerosol composition of the 2005 

data and 2001–2004 data for each Class 

I Area. This analysis showed overall 

level and speciation of pollutants 

measured at the Class I area monitors in 

2005 was consistent with the overall 

level and speciation of pollutants during 

the 2001–2004 baseline period. Since 

the measured visibility-impairing 

pollution in 2005 was consistent with 

the baseline years, it is reasonable to 

assume that the 2005 emissions were 

sufficiently consistent with the 

exmissions in 2000–2004 for this year to 

be used as the baseline for the Regional 

Haze Plan.20 Therefore, we propose to 

use 2005 as the base year inventory. 

The majority of the 2005, 2008, and 

2018 inventories were derived from a 

2010 study conducted by Environ on 

behalf of the Hawaii DOH.21 The 

numbers developed by Environ were 

then refined and improved by HI 

DOH.22 Between the time when the 

Environ Study was conducted and the 

development of this proposed FIP, EPA 

finalized a new model for the estimation 

of emissions from on-road vehicles. This 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 103 / Tuesday, May 29, 2012 / Proposed Rules 31701 

23Technical Analysis for Hawaii’s Regional Haze 

FIP Report—Task 16: On-Road Mobile Emissions 

Inventory, ICF International, March 23, 2012. 

24 ‘‘Technical Analysis for Hawaii’s Regional 

Haze FIP Report—Task 16: Commercial Marine 

Inventory,’’ ICF International, April 2, 2012. 

25Nautical miles. 

new model, MOVES, provides for a 

more accurate estimation of emissions 

from these sources. EPA worked with 

the University of North Carolina (UNC) 

and ICF International to develop a new 

emissions inventory for on-road 

vehicles for Hawaii for the years 2005, 

2008 and 2018.23 Tables 8 through 10 

reflect these revised emissions numbers. 

EPA also worked with UNC and ICF 

to improve the 2018 emissions estimates 

for marine sources. Environ used the 

best data available at the time, but did 

not account for the impact of the 

economic recession on marine vessel 

activity, and cruise ships in particular. 

In addition, Environ did not take into 

account the impact of the North 

American Emissions Control Area 

(NAECA). The United States 

Government, together with Canada and 

France, established the NA ECA under 

the auspices of Annex VI of the 

International Convention for the 

Prevention of Pollution from Ships 

(MARPOL Annex VI), a treaty 

developed by the International Maritime 

Organization. This ECA will require use 

of lower sulfur fuels in ships operating 

within 200 nautical miles of the 

majority of the U.S. and Canadian 

coastline, including the U.S. Gulf Coast 

and Hawaii, beginning in August 2012. 

The ECA will result in lower NOX and 

SO2 emissions from marine sources in 

Hawaii. Therefore, UNC and ICF have 

updated the 2018 inventory to include 

the benefits of the ECA. The 2018 

marine emissions estimates in Table 8 

are based on this more recent work by 

UNC and ICF.24

TABLE 8—STATEWIDE EMISSIONS INVENTORY FOR 2005 

[Tons per year] 

Source category NOX SO2 VOC PM NH3

Point Sources ....................................................................... 22,745 27,072 2,695 3,536 12 

Area Sources ....................................................................... 1,509 3,716 16,920 33,408 11,136 

Windblown Dust ................................................................... ........................ ........................ ........................ 46,808 ........................

Wildfire ................................................................................. 2,156 591 4,729 9,771 540 

Agricultural Burning .............................................................. 406 178 535 1,567 60 

Other fire .............................................................................. 1 ........................ 7 7 ........................

On-Road Mobile Sources .................................................... 20,642 321 12,066 638 1,085 

Non-Road Mobile Sources ................................................... 4,750 534 6,121 484 5 

Aircraft .................................................................................. 1,541 135 262 165 ........................

In and Near Port Marine ...................................................... 2,572 2,201 92 183 ........................

Underway Marine (<30 nm 25) ............................................. 3,052 1,418 117 215 ........................

Trains ................................................................................... 5 ........................ ........................ ........................ ........................

Volcano ................................................................................ ........................ 961,366 ........................ ........................ ........................

Sea Spray ............................................................................ ........................ ........................ ........................ 382,637 ........................

Biogenic ............................................................................... 4,617 ........................ 130,153 ........................ ........................

Total .............................................................................. 63,996 997,532 173,697 479,419 12,838 

Anthropogenic Total ............................................................. 59,379 36,166 43,544 96,782 12,838 

TABLE 9—STATEWIDE INVENTORY FOR EMISSIONS 2008 

[Tons per year] 

Source category NOX SO2 VOC PM NH3

Point Sources ....................................................................... 20,246 25,849 2,544 3,389 12 

Area Sources ....................................................................... 1,166 15,767 18,025 34,917 11,275 

Windblown Dust ................................................................... ........................ ........................ ........................ 46,808 ........................

Wildfire ................................................................................. 2,156 591 4,729 9,771 540 

Agricultural Burning .............................................................. 406 178 535 1,567 60 

Other fire .............................................................................. 1 ........................ 8 7 ........................

On Road Mobile Sources .................................................... 14,239 97 8,526 547 1,124 

Non Road Mobile Sources ................................................... 4,573 78 4,912 422 5 

Aircraft .................................................................................. 2,568 260 628 123 ........................

In and Near Port Marine ...................................................... 12,432 2,638 308 605 ........................

Underway Marine (<30 nm) ................................................. 562 282 18 42 ........................

Trains ................................................................................... 5 ........................ ........................ ........................ ........................

Volcano ................................................................................ ........................ 1,195,314 ........................ ........................ ........................

Sea Spray ............................................................................ ........................ ........................ ........................ 382,637 ........................

Biogenic ............................................................................... 4,617 ........................ 130,153 ........................ ........................

Total .............................................................................. 62,971 1,241,054 170,386 480,835 13,017 

Anthropogenic Total ............................................................. 58,354 45,740 40,233 98,198 13,017 

TABLE 10—STATEWIDE EMISSIONS INVENTORY FOR 2018 

Source category NOX SO2 VOC PM NH3

Point Sources ....................................................................... 28,594 36,212 4,157 5,052 13 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
31702 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 103 / Tuesday, May 29, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

26Haleakala NP Visibility Assessment, Hawai’i 

Volcanoes NP Visibility Assessment, and IMPROVE 

PMF Factor Identification notes Positive Matrix 

Factorization Analysis of HALE1 & HAVO1 

IMPROVE data sets April 20, 2012, State of Hawaii, 

Department of Health, Clean Air Branch. 

27M. Pitchford, ‘‘Causes of Haze for Hawaii’s Two 

Class I Areas’’, presented at United States 

Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Air Quality 

Task Force Meeting, Wailea, Hawaii, November 13 

and 15, 2005. 

TABLE 10—STATEWIDE EMISSIONS INVENTORY FOR 2018—Continued 

Source category NOX SO2 VOC PM NH3

Area Sources ....................................................................... 1,723 3,524 20,054 43,506 12,530 

Windblown Dust ................................................................... ........................ ........................ ........................ 46,808 ........................

Wildfire ................................................................................. 2,156 591 4,729 9,771 540 

Agricultural Burning .............................................................. 406 178 535 1,567 60 

Other fire .............................................................................. 1 ........................ 8 7 ........................

On Road Mobile Sources .................................................... 5,058 72 3,883 400 1,478 

Non Road Mobile Sources ................................................... 3,090 7 4,579 297 7 

Aircraft .................................................................................. 1,920 167 466 194 ........................

In and Near Port Marine ...................................................... 2,097 117 92 50 ........................

Underway Marine (<30nm) .................................................. 1,867 68 78 33 ........................

Trains ................................................................................... 5 ........................ ........................ ........................ ........................

Volcano ................................................................................ ........................ 683,746 ........................ ........................ ........................

Sea Spray ............................................................................ ........................ ........................ ........................ 421,222 ........................

Biogenic ............................................................................... 4,617 ........................ 130,153 ........................ ........................

Total .............................................................................. 51,533 724,681 168,734 528,908 14,628 

Anthropogenic Total ............................................................. 46,916 40,935 38,581 107,686 14,628 

2. Review of the Emissions Inventory for 

Completeness and Accuracy 

EPA has reviewed the methods used 

by Environ, the Hawaii Department of 

Health and ICF in developing this 

inventory. We propose to find that the 

best available emissions factors and 

activity data were used in developing 

the emissions estimates. We also 

propose to find that the inventory 

captures all of the emissions sources 

relevant to the development of a 

Regional Haze Plan. 

3. Assessment of the Emissions 

Inventory 

There are a few important conclusions 

to draw from the 2005, 2008, and 2018 

statewide emissions inventories in 

Tables 8 through 10. First, 

nonanthropogenic emissions are 

significant for SO2, VOC and PM. As 

one can see from the tables above, the 

volcano dominates statewide SO2

emissions. Emissions from the volcano 

comprise over 96% of the SO2 emissions 

in 2005 and 2008. On days when the 

volcano is erupting and the winds are 

carrying those emissions over the Class 

I area monitors, these natural emissions 

will dominate the measurements. 

Nonanthropogenic sources also 

comprise the majority of VOC and PM 

emissions. Second, total statewide 

anthropogenic emissions of NOX and 

VOC are decreasing. Human-made NOX

pollution is projected to be 21% lower 

in 2018 than in 2005. Human-made 

VOC pollution is projected to decrease 

by 11%. These reductions are primarily 

due to EPA regulations for on-road 

vehicles. Emissions from cars and trucks 

are decreasing dramatically, even 

accounting for economic and population 

growth. This is due to older, higher 

emitting vehicles being replaced by ones 

with more modern air pollution 

controls. NOX emissions in this category 

are projected to decrease by over 15,000 

tpy and VOC emissions by over 8,000 

tpy between 2005 and 2018. 

However, anthropogenic SO2

emissions are expected to increase 

between 2005 and 2018, largely due to 

increased emissions from point sources. 

The lower sulfur marine fuels required 

by the ECA are expected to result in a 

95% reduction in emissions from 

shipping, but those reductions are 

overwhelmed by the increases from 

point source emissions. The growth rate 

of point source emissions is very 

sensitive to assumptions about future 

economic growth. The Environ report, 

from which this data is derived, 

assumes robust economic growth 

between 2005 and 2018. Given the 

economic recession that began in late 

2008 this level of emission growth will 

likely over-predict future anthropogenic 

emissions. Nevertheless, this is the best 

data available. 

Our analysis of the monitoring data 

indicates that SO2 is the principal 

pollutant of concern for this planning 

period. See section III.D below. The 

visibility impacts of NOX and VOC 

emissions are of secondary importance. 

Id. The increase in anthropogenic SO2

emissions indicates that additional 

pollution reductions are needed to 

ensure reasonable progress toward the 

goal of eliminating anthropogenic 

visibility impairment in Hawaii’s 

mandatory class I areas. Our proposal to 

achieve these reductions is explained in 

section III.F of this notice. 

D. Sources of Visibility Impairment in 

Hawaii Class I Areas 

In order to determine the significant 

sources contributing to haze in Hawaii’s 

Class I areas, EPA relied upon the 

monitoring data from the IMPROVE 

network and the emission inventory for 

the State of Hawaii. EPA also reviewed 

the source apportionment analysis 

developed by Hawaii DOH 26 as well as 

the source apportionment analysis by 

the National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration (NOAA).27

Table 11, below, shows the percentage 

contribution of different pollutant 

species to light extinction at the two 

Class I Areas in Hawaii on the 20% 

Worst Days in 2001 to 2004. 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 103 / Tuesday, May 29, 2012 / Proposed Rules 31703 

28 Data from the HALE Monitor, located outside 

Haleakala NP. 

29 Yvon and Saltzman 1996, Atmospheric Sulfur 

Cycling in the Tropical Marine Boundary Layer. J. 

Geophys. Res. 101, 6911–6918. 

30Review of VIEWS2.0 2009–2010 Haleakala NP 

Organic and Elemental Carbon Data, March 30, 

2012, State of Hawaii, Department of Health, Clean 

Air Branch, and Comparison of Haleakala NP 

HALE1 and HACR1 IMPROVE Monitoring Site 

2007–2008 Data Sets, March 30, 2012, State of 

Hawaii, Department of Health, Clean Air Branch. 

31Subject-to-Best Available Retrofit Technology 

(BART) Modeling for the State of Hawaii, 

Application of the CALPUFF Modeling System, 

March 3, 2010, Alpine Geophysics, LLC. 

TABLE 11—SPECIES-SPECIFIC LIGHT EXTINCTION DETERMINED FROM 2001–2004 IMPROVE MONITORING DATA—20% 

WORST DAYS

Class I area Sulfate % Nitrate % Organic 

carbon % 

Elemental 

carbon % Soil % Sea salt % Coarse mass % 

Hawaii Volcanoes NP .. 90 1 4 1 1 1 1 

Haleakala NP28 ........... 61 9 10 5 1 4 9 

Sulfate is the largest cause of visibility 

degradation on the 20% worst days at 

both Haleakala NP and Hawaii 

Volcanoes NP. Natural causes of sulfate 

include the emissions from the Kilauea 

volcano, located in the Hawaii 

Volcanoes NP, and natural marine 

sulfates. The emissions and impact of 

the volcano varies substantially from 

year to year. Source apportionment 

assessments have estimated that the 

volcano causes approximately 90% of 

the visibility impairment at Hawaii 

Volcanoes NP and approximately 60% 

of the visibility impairment at Haleakala 

NP on the 20% worst days. The natural 

marine sulfate impact is expected to be 

much smaller.29 International transport 

may also contribute to sulfur visibility 

impairment. Anthropogenic sources of 

sulfur include oil combustion, and 

shipping. 

Nitrate contributes 9% to the 

visibility degradation on the 20% worst 

days at Haleakala. The major 

anthropogenic sources of nitrate on 

Maui are point sources, on-road and 

non-road mobile sources, and shipping. 

Nitrate contributes 1% to the visibility 

degradation on the 20% worst days at 

Hawaii Volcanoes NP. 

Organic Carbon contributes to 10% of 

the visibility degradation at the 

Haleakala (HALE1) monitor, which is 

located outside of the park. A 

comparison of monitoring data at the 

Haleakala Crater (HACR1) IMPROVE 

monitoring site at the Haleakala Site 

boundary shows approximately half the 

level of organic carbon of the HALE1 

site.30 Sources of organic carbon include 

agricultural burning, oil combustion, 

and international transport. Organic 

Carbon contributes 4% of the visibility 

degradation at the Hawaii Volcanoes NP 

during the 2001–2004 time period, 

although more recent data from 2005– 

2009 indicate that organic carbon 

contributes to 1% of the visibility 

impairment for the 20% worst days. 

Elemental Carbon contributes to 5% 

of the visibility degradation at the 

Haleakala (HALE1) monitor, which is 

located outside of the park. A 

comparison of recent monitoring at the 

Haleakala Crater monitoring site at 

Haleakala NP (HACR1) shows a lower 

level of elemental carbon of the HALE1 

site. 

Coarse mass contributes to 9% of the 

visibility degradation at the Haleakala 

(HALE1) monitor. The sources of coarse 

mass include fugitive dust, international 

transport, and shipping. Soil contributes 

to 1% of the visibility degradation at 

each of the Class I Areas. The soil 

impact varies seasonally, with the 

highest levels in the springtime, and 

appears to be associated with 

international transport. 

EPA has evaluated the six particulate 

pollutants (ammonium sulfate, 

ammonium nitrate, organic carbon (OC), 

elemental carbon (EC), fine soil and 

coarse mass (CM)) that contribute to 

visibility impairment at Hawaii’s two 

mandatory Class I federal areas, and 

determined that the first Regional Haze 

Plan RP evaluation should focus 

primarily on significant sources of SO2

(sulfate precursor). NOX (nitrate 

precursor) is a secondary concern. 

The sources of coarse mass (CM) are 

uncertain because of emission inventory 

limitations associated with natural 

sources (predominantly wildfires) and 

uncertainty of fugitive (windblown) 

emissions. Because of the difficulty in 

attributing the sources of visibility 

impairment for this pollutant, EPA has 

determined that it is not reasonable in 

this planning period to recommend 

emission control measures for coarse 

mass. Coarse mass contribution to 

visibility impairment, emissions 

sources, and potential control measures 

should be addressed in future Regional 

Haze plan updates. 

Because fine soil appears to be 

primarily attributable to international 

transport, EPA has determined that it is 

not reasonable in this planning period 

to recommend emission control 

measures for fine soil. Although organic 

and elemental carbon contribute to base 

year visibility impairment, recent 

monitoring at the Haleakala Crater 

(HACR1) monitoring site and the Hawaii 

Volcanoes (HAVO1) show low 

contributions to visibility impairment 

from organic and elemental carbon. 

E. Best Available Retrofit Technology 

Evaluation 

1. Identification of BART-Eligible 

Sources 

The first step of a BART evaluation is 

to identify all the BART-eligible sources 

within the state’s boundaries. In 2008, 

the Hawaii DOH conducted a survey of 

the major sources in the state to identify 

which sources were BART eligible. This 

survey was completed and certified by 

the responsible official at each major 

source. Through that process, the 

following facilities were identified as 

BART-eligible: Hawaiian Commercial & 

Sugar Company (HC&S) Puunene 

facility, Chevron Refinery, Tesoro 

Refinery, Hu Honua Bioenergy— 

Pepeekeo facility, Maui Electric 

Company (MECO)—Kahului facility, 

Hawaii Electric Light Company 

(HELCO) Kanoelehua Hill, Hawaiian 

Electric Company (HECO)—Waiau 

facility, HECO—Kahe facility. We 

propose to determine that each of these 

facilities is BART-eligible. 

2. Identification of Sources Subject to 

BART 

The second step of the BART 

evaluation is to identify those BARTeligible sources that may reasonably be 

anticipated to cause or contribute to any 

visibility impairment at any Class I area, 

i.e., those sources that are subject to 

BART. The BART Guidelines allow us 

to consider exempting some BARTeligible sources from further BART 

review because they may not reasonably 

be anticipated to cause or contribute to 

any visibility impairment in a Class I 

area. We propose to use the dispersion 

modeling that the Hawaii DOH’s 

consultant performed.31 This modeling 

assessed the extent of each BARTeligible source’s contribution to 

visibility impairment at the Class I 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
31704 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 103 / Tuesday, May 29, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

32Note that our reference to CALPUFF 

encompasses the entire CALPUFF modeling system, 

which includes the CALMET, CALPUFF, and 

CALPOST models and other pre and post 

processors. The different versions of CALPUFF 

have corresponding versions of CALMET, 

CALPOST, etc. which may not be compatible with 

previous versions (e.g., the output from a newer 

version of CALMET may not be compatible with an 

older version of CALPUFF). The different versions 

of the CALPUFF modeling system are available 

from the model developer at http://www.src.com/

calpuff/calpuff1.htm. 33Subject-to-Best Available Retrofit Technology 

(BART) and Reasonable Progress (RP) Prioritization 

Modeling Protocol for the State of Hawaii 

Application of the CALPUFF Modeling System, 

November 30, 2009, Alpine Geophysics, LLC. 34MM5 Application for 2005 Over the Hawaiian 

Islands, prepared for Hawaii State Department of 

Health, Environmental Management Division, Clean 

Air Branch Prepared by: Alpine Geophysics, LLC. 

35Three years (2005, 2006, 2007) of MM5 data 

have since been prepared for HECO. MM5 

Meteorological Dataset Development for Hawaii, 

Draft December 2008, JCA. EPA has not reviewed 

this additional data, but may evaluate and consider 

this data for future visibility actions. 

36Subject-to-Best Available Retrofit Technology 

(BART) Modeling for the State of Hawaii, 

Application of the CALPUFF Modeling System, 

Alpine Geophysics, LLC, 3 March 2010. 

areas, consistent with the BART 

Guidelines. 

a. Modeling Methodology 

The BART Guidelines provide that we 

may use the CALPUFF 32 modeling 

system or another appropriate model to 

predict the visibility impacts from a 

single source on a Class I area and to, 

therefore, determine whether an 

individual source is anticipated to cause 

or contribute to impairment of visibility 

in Class I areas, i.e., ‘‘is subject to 

BART.’’ The Guidelines state that we 

find CALPUFF is the best regulatory 

modeling application currently 

available for predicting a single source’s 

contribution to visibility impairment (70 

FR 39162 (July 6, 2005)). 

The BART Guidelines indicate that a 

modeling protocol be developed for 

determining individual source 

attributions. The State of Hawaii’s 

contractor, Alpine Geophysics, 

developed a protocol, which was 

reviewed by the State of Hawaii and 

EPA.33 Although the BART Guidelines 

recommend use of a minimum of three 

years of mesoscale meteorological 

model output for conducting this type of 

analysis, only one year (2005) of 

mesoscale meteorological data was 

available at the time this protocol was 

developed.34 Therefore, emissions were 

modeled over a one-year period using 

the 2005 mesoscale meteorological 

data.35 Consistent with the BART 

Guidelines, this modeling was based on 

maximum actual 24-hour emissions for 

each source. EPA believes that this 

modeling provides a reasonable estimate 

of daily visibility impacts above 

estimated natural conditions at each 

Class I area. Therefore, we propose to 

use the results of this CALPUFF 

modeling to determine whether each 

BART-eligible source has a significant 

impact on visibility. 

b. Contribution Threshold 

For the modeling to determine the 

applicability of BART to single sources, 

the BART Guidelines note that the first 

step is to set a contribution threshold to 

assess whether the impact of a single 

source is sufficient to cause or 

contribute to visibility impairment at a 

Class I area. The BART Guidelines state 

that, ‘‘[a] single source that is 

responsible for a 1.0 deciview change or 

more should be considered to ‘cause’ 

visibility impairment.’’ 70 FR 39161, 

July 5, 2005. The BART Guidelines also 

state that ‘‘the appropriate threshold for 

determining whether a source 

contributes to visibility impairment may 

reasonably differ across states,’’ but, 

‘‘[a]s a general matter, any threshold 

that you use for determining whether a 

source ‘contributes’ to visibility 

impairment should not be higher than 

0.5 deciviews.’’ Id. Further, in setting a 

contribution threshold, states or EPA 

should ‘‘consider the number of 

emissions sources affecting the Class I 

areas at issue and the magnitude of the 

individual sources’ impacts.’’ The 

Guidelines affirm that states and EPA 

are free to use a lower threshold if they 

conclude that the location of a large 

number of BART-eligible sources in 

proximity to a Class I area justifies this 

approach. 

For its analysis, Hawaii chose to use 

the recommended 0.5 deciview 

threshold for subject-to-BART 

determination and RP prioritization. 

EPA believes this threshold is 

appropriate, based on the number of 

sources affecting the Class I areas and 

the magnitude of the individual sources 

impacts. Therefore, we propose to use a 

contribution threshold of 0.5 deciviews 

for determining which sources are 

subject to BART. 

c. Sources Identified by EPA as Subject 

to BART 

The CALPUFF modeling analysis was 

performed to determine which BARTeligible sources in Hawaii are subject to 

BART.36 The modeling assessment 

looked at the HC&S Puunene facility, 

the Chevron Refinery, the Tesoro 

Refinery, the Hu Honua Bioenergy— 

Pepeekeo facility, the MECO—Kahului 

facility, the HELCO Kanoelehua Hill 

facility, the HECO—Waiau facility, and 

the HECO—Kahe facility. The only 

facilities that showed a 98th percentile 

(8th high) 24-hour average visibility 

impact over the 0.5 delta deciview 

impact threshold were the Hu Honua 

Bioenergy—Pepeekeo and the HELCO— 

Kanoelehua Hill facilities. Thus, the Hu 

Honua Bioenergy—Pepeekeo and the 

HELCO—Kanoelehua Hill facilities are 

subject to BART. The remaining 

facilities; HC&S Puunene facility, the 

Chevron Refinery, the Tesoro Refinery, 

the MECO—Kahului facility, the 

HECO—Waiau facility, and the HECO— 

Kahe facility are not subject to BART. 

As shown in Table 12, EPA proposes 

to exempt six of the eight BART-eligible 

sources in the State from further review 

under the BART requirements. The 

visibility impacts attributable to each of 

these sources fell below 0.5 deciviews. 

Our proposed contribution threshold 

captures those sources responsible for 

most of the total visibility impacts, 

while still excluding other sources with 

very small impacts. 

The results of the CALPUFF modeling 

are summarized in Table 12. Those 

facilities listed with demonstrated 

impacts at all Class I areas less than 0.5 

deciviews are proposed by EPA to not 

be subject to BART; those with impacts 

greater than 0.5 deciviews are proposed 

by EPA to be subject to BART. 

TABLE 12—INDIVIDUAL BART-ELIGIBLE SOURCE VISIBILITY IMPACTS ON HAWAII CLASS I AREAS

Source and unit Class I area 

Maximum 24- 

hour 98th percentile visibility 

impact 

(deciview) 

Subject to BART 

or exempt 

HC&S Puunene facility (Bagasse) .............................................................. Haleakala Hawaii Volcanoes ...... 0.059 

0.008 

Exempt. 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 103 / Tuesday, May 29, 2012 / Proposed Rules 31705 

37Letter from Stuart Yamada, Hawaii DOH, to 

John C. Silvia, Hu Honua Bioenergy (August 31, 

2011) attaching Covered Source Permit (CSP) No. 

0724–01–C and Covered Source Permit Review 

Summary. 

38These results from Trinity’s modeling indicate 

a lower impact than Alpine’s modeling. However, 

even with Trinity’s modeling, the baseline impacts 

are high enough to make the source subject to 

BART. 

39BART Five-Factor Analysis Prepared for 

Hawaiian Electric Light Company, October 2010, 

Trinity Consultants. 

TABLE 12—INDIVIDUAL BART-ELIGIBLE SOURCE VISIBILITY IMPACTS ON HAWAII CLASS I AREAS—Continued 

Source and unit Class I area 

Maximum 24- 

hour 98th percentile visibility 

impact 

(deciview) 

Subject to BART 

or exempt 

HC&S Puunene facility (Coal) .................................................................... Haleakala Hawaii Volcanoes ...... 0.133 

0.039 

Exempt. 

Chevron Refinery ........................................................................................ Haleakala Hawaii Volcanoes ...... 0.021 

0.016 

Exempt. 

Tesoro Refinery .......................................................................................... Haleakala Hawaii Volcanoes ...... 0.025 

0.017 

Exempt. 

Hu Honua Bioenergy—Pepeekeo facility ................................................... Haleakala Hawaii Volcanoes ...... 0.323 

0.540 

Subject to 

BART. 

MECO—Kahului facility .............................................................................. Haleakala Hawaii Volcanoes ...... 0.232 

0.108 

Exempt. 

HELCO Kanoelehua Hill ............................................................................. Haleakala Hawaii Volcanoes ...... 0.808 

2.334 

Subject to 

BART. 

HECO—Waiau facility ................................................................................. Haleakala Hawaii Volcanoes ...... 0.083 

0.038 

Exempt. 

HECO—Kahe facility .................................................................................. Haleakala Hawaii Volcanoes ...... 0.221 

0.132 

Exempt. 

The owner of the Hu Honua 

Bioenergy relinquished the facility’s 

existing permit on September 16, 2010 

and the facility was issued a new permit 

on August 31, 2011, which allows the 

facility to burn only non-fossil fuels.37

Since the facility can no longer burn 

fossil fuels, it is no longer BART-eligible 

and thus not subject to BART. 

Therefore, the only subject-to-BART 

source in Hawaii is the HELCO 

Kanoelehua Hill facility. 

3. BART Determination for Kanoelehua 

Hill 

The third step of a BART evaluation 

is to perform the BART analysis. The 

BART Guidelines (70 FR 39164 (July 6, 

2005)) describe the BART analysis as 

consisting of the following five steps: 

• Step 1: Identify All Available 

Retrofit Control Technologies; 

• Step 2: Eliminate Technically 

Infeasible Options; 

• Step 3: Evaluate Control 

Effectiveness of Remaining Control 

Technologies; 

• Step 4: Evaluate Impacts and 

Document the Results; and 

• Step 5: Evaluate Visibility Impacts. 

In determining BART, the state, or 

EPA if implementing a FIP, must 

consider the five statutory factors in 

section 169A of the CAA: (1) The costs 

of compliance; (2) the energy and nonair quality environmental impacts of 

compliance; (3) any existing pollution 

control technology in use at the source; 

(4) the remaining useful life of the 

source; and (5) the degree of 

improvement in visibility which may 

reasonably be anticipated to result from 

the use of such technology. See also 40 

CFR 51.308(e)(1)(ii)(A). The actual 

visibility impact analysis occurs during 

steps 4 and 5 of the process. 

As mentioned previously, the only 

source in Hawaii subject to BART is the 

Kanoelehua Hill Generating Station 

(Hill) on the Island of Hawaii (the Big 

Island). Specifically, there are two 

residual fuel oil-fired boilers at this 

plant that are subject to BART (Hill 5 

and Hill 6). Hill 5 is a 14 megawatt 

(MW) front-fired boiler. Hill 6 is a 21 

MW tangentially fired boiler. Both 

boilers currently burn residual oil with 

a sulfur content not to exceed 2% by 

weight. Table 13 summarizes the 

baseline emission rates and modeled 

visibility impact of these sources. The 

annual emissions are based on 2009 

operations because 2009 was the most 

current, complete year of data available 

when this modeling was performed in 

2010. 

TABLE 13—BASELINE EMISSIONS AND VISIBILITY IMPACTS OF HILL

SO2 emissions ..................................................................................................................................................... tons per year [tpy] ..... 2,778 

NOX emissions .................................................................................................................................................... tpy .............................. 735 

PM emissions ...................................................................................................................................................... tpy .............................. 70 

Visibility impact on Haleakala.38 delta dv ...................... 0.44 

Visibility impact on Hawaii Volcanoes NP ........................................................................................................... delta dv ...................... 1.56 

Trinity Consulting, on behalf of 

HELCO, the plant operator, performed a 

five-factor analysis for this plant.39 We 

have reviewed this analysis and believe 

it adequately addresses the five BART 

factors. Although the BART guidelines 

are not mandatory for Hill because the 

plant’s total generating capacity is less 

than 750 megawatts, the Trinity analysis 

is generally consistent with the 

guidelines. Our analysis of the five 

factors is largely based on the Trinity 

report. 

a. BART for NOX and Particulate Matter 

(PM) 

The Trinity report appropriately 

examined BART controls for NOX and 

PM. However, due to the overwhelming 

contribution of sulfate to visibility 

impairment at the nearby Hawaii 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
31706 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 103 / Tuesday, May 29, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

40Letter from Brenner Munger, Manager, 

Environmental Department, Hawaiian Electric 

Company to Tom Webb, U.S. EPA Region 9, January 

27, 2012. 

41Fuel Cost Screening Tool (r1 4–18–12), Energy 

Strategies Incorporated, April 18, 2012. 

42Email from Juanita Haydel, ICF Corporation to 

Greg Nudd, EPA Region 9, April 4, 2012, with 

spreadsheet titled: ‘‘Hawaii Emissions 

Values_Revised_040412_FTC.xlsx.’’ 

Volcanoes Class I area, it is unlikely that 

reductions in these pollutants from Hill 

would have a measurable impact on 

visibility at that area. 

For PM, the Trinity report considered 

the following technologies: Dry 

electrostatic precipitator (ESP), wet ESP, 

fabric filter, wet scrubber, cyclone and 

fuel switching. Dry ESPs, cyclones and 

fabric filters are not appropriate for the 

type of particulate emitted by this plant. 

A wet scrubber would work, but these 

types of devices are better suited to 

larger particulate than is emitted from 

an oil-fired boiler and their control 

efficiency would be small. A wet ESP 

would have good control efficiency and 

is technically feasible. Similarly, 

switching to distillate fuel would be an 

effective and technically feasible control 

for PM. Trinity estimated the cost 

effectiveness of a wet ESP as $13,000 

per ton of PM controlled. They 

estimated the cost effectiveness of 

switching to distillate fuel as $170,000 

per ton. Neither of these controls would 

be cost effective for PM. 

For NOX, the Trinity report 

considered both combustion controls 

such as flue gas recirculation and lowNOX burners as well as post-combustion 

controls such as selective catalytic 

reduction (SCR). There were no 

technical barriers to implementing any 

of these controls. The post-combustion 

controls were not found to be cost 

effective. Low-NOX burners were found 

to be cost effective by the Trinity report. 

However, given the monitoring data on 

Hawaii, EPA finds that the emission 

reductions provided by low-NOX

burners is unlikely to provide a 

measurable visibility benefit at Hawaii 

Volcanoes or Haleakala. 

Based on our consideration of the five 

BART factors, EPA has determined that 

no control for NOX and PM at the Hill 

plant is consistent with BART, given the 

unique conditions in Hawaii. NOX

reductions may need to be pursued in 

future planning periods as 

anthropogenic sulfates are reduced and 

nitrates become a larger portion of 

anthropogenic visibility impairment. 

b. BART for SO2

The principal visibility-impairing 

pollutant from the Hill Plant is SO2. As 

explained above, sulfates are the largest 

component of visibility impairment at 

Hawaii Volcanoes and at Haleakela, 

even on the best days. The Hill Plant is 

by far the largest source of 

anthropogenic SO2 emissions on the Big 

Island. 

The Trinity report considered both 

flue gas desulfurization (FGD) and fuel 

switching as possible controls. The 

report found that no other oil-fired 

electric generating unit had installed 

FGD technology and due to the lack of 

industry experience, the technology was 

infeasible. EPA agrees that FGD 

technology is unproven for this 

application and concurs with Trinity’s 

decision to focus on fuel switching. 

However, the Trinity analysis only 

looked at switching to distillate fuel oil. 

Distillate fuel oil is substantially more 

expensive than residual fuel oil and it 

provides less energy per gallon. As a 

result, it is not a cost effective control 

measure. 

EPA requested HECO to consider 

switching to lower sulfur residual fuel 

oil, which would be a less expensive 

option. HECO responded with its own 

cost effectiveness estimate.40 The lowest 

cost option, residual fuel oil no more 

than 1% sulfur by weight, had a cost 

effectiveness of between $6,677/ton and 

$7,363/ton. 

EPA considered this cost estimate to 

be too high in light of available market 

data and conducted our own analysis, 

which is summarized in Table 14, 

below, and further explained in the TSD 

for this action. 

TABLE 14—COST AND BENEFITS OF

SWITCHING TO 1% SULFUR FUEL OIL

Baseline Weight % Sulfur [S] 1.57 

Baseline Fuel Consumption 

[gal/yr] ............................... 18,650,604 

Baseline Emissions [tons 

SO2/yr] ............................... 2,344 

New Fuel Weight % S .......... 1.00 

Cost Differential [$/gal] ......... 0.255 

Controlled Emissions [tons 

SO2/yr] ............................... 1,493 

Annual Costs [$/yr] ............... 4,755,904 

Annual Emission Reductions 

[tons SO2/yr] ...................... 851 

Cost Efficiency [$/ton SO2

reduced] ............................ 5,587 

Based on this analysis, EPA estimates 

that requiring a switch to 1% sulfur fuel 

oil would result in a reduction in SO2

emissions of 851 tons per year and an 

increase in fuel costs of over $4.7 

million/year. Thus, the cost 

effectiveness of this control option is 

estimated to be approximately $5,600/ 

ton. EPA contracted with the energy 

economics consulting firm Energy 

Strategies to estimate the impact of 

these increased fuel costs on electric 

rates.41 Based on its analysis, these 

increased costs would translate into a 

roughly 1% increase in retail electric 

rates on the Big Island. 

The next factors to consider are: (2) 

The energy and non-air quality 

environmental impacts of compliance; 

(3) any existing pollution control 

technology in use at the source; and (4) 

the remaining useful life of the source. 

There are no existing pollution controls 

at the site for SO2. We have considered 

factors (2) and (4) in the context of the 

Hawaii Clean Energy Initiative, a 

collaborative effort by the State of 

Hawaii, the U.S. Department of Energy 

and various other stakeholders. The 

Initiative’s ultimate goal is meeting 70% 

of the state’s energy needs through 

energy efficiency and renewable energy 

by 2030. One of the key pieces of 

legislation aimed at achieving this goal 

is Hawaii’s 2009 Clean Energy Omnibus 

Bill (ACT 155 (09), HB 1464, signed 

June 25, 2009). This statute calls for 

30% reduction in the state’s energy use 

via efficiency and increases the state’s 

renewable portfolio standard to 40% by 

2030. EPA contracted with UNC and ICF 

to project the 2018 emissions of power 

plants considering the requirements of 

the Clean Energy Omnibus Bill.42 These 

projections are compared to the current 

2018 projections based on the most 

recent Integrated Resource Plan (IRP) for 

Hawaii electric utilities. This IRP 

predates the 2009 bill and so does not 

account for its requirements. Table 15 

compares the baseline emission 

projections for 2018, derived from the 

current IRP and the projections that take 

into account the requirements of the 

Clean Energy Bill. 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 103 / Tuesday, May 29, 2012 / Proposed Rules 31707 

43EPA’s Model Distribution Web page available 

at: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/scram/ 

dispersion_prefrec.htm#calpuff. 

44http://205.254.135.7/state/state-energyrankings.cfm?keyid=18&orderid=1. 

TABLE 15—RANGE OF 2018 EMISSIONS PROJECTIONS FOR HILL

[Tons per year] 

2018 SO2

emissions 

2018 SO2

emissions 

IRP Clean energy 

bill 

Kanoelehua Hill Generating Station ........................................................................................................................ 3,264 765 

The projections based on the goals of 

the Clean Energy Bill assume that the 

energy conservation and renewable 

energy goals will be met in a more or 

less even fashion year to year. So, by 

2018, most of these projects will be in 

place. This is a fairly optimistic 

scenario, but it gives some insight into 

the impact of the Clean Energy Bill. By 

2018, Hill is projected to be operating at 

a significantly lower capacity factor 

and/or burning biofuels with much less 

sulfur. Although the resulting 

reductions in sulfur emissions are not 

enforceable requirements, they suggest 

that SO2 emissions from Hill may 

decrease even in the absence of any 

BART requirements. This analysis also 

indicates that at least some of the units 

at Hill may be coming to the end of their 

useful life within the next 20 years. 

The final factor to consider is the 

visibility benefits of controls. Under the 

BART Guidelines, the improved 

visibility in deciviews from installing 

controls is determined by using the 

CALPUFF air quality model. CALPUFF, 

generally, simulates the transport and 

dispersion of emissions, and the 

conversion of SO2 to particulate sulfate 

and NOX to particulate nitrate, at a rate 

dependent on meteorological conditions 

and background ozone concentration. 

These concentrations are then converted 

to delta deciviews by the CALPOST 

post-processor. The CALPUFF modeling 

system is available and documented at 

EPA’s Model Distribution Web page.43

The ‘‘delta deciviews’’ for control 

options estimated by the modeling 

represents a BART source’s impact on 

visibility at the Class I areas under 

different control scenarios. Each 

modeled day and location in the Class 

I area will have an associated delta 

deciviews for each control option. For 

each day, the model finds the maximum 

visibility impact of all locations (i.e., 

receptors) in the Class I area. From 

among these daily values, the BART 

Guidelines recommend use of the 98th 

percentile, for comparing the base case 

and the effects of various controls. 

In its BART analysis for Hill, Trinity 

modeled the lower emission rates 

associated with lower sulfur fuels and 

estimated the following visibility 

benefits. The delta deciview (delta dv) 

impact from Hill decreased from 1.56 

for baseline conditions to 1.05 when 

burning the 1% sulfur fuel, which 

represents an approximately 0.5 dv 

benefit. 

Taking into consideration all of these 

factors, we propose to determine that 

BART for Hill is no additional controls. 

In particular, although we consider 0.5 

dv to be a significant improvement in 

visibility, we do not believe it justifies 

the imposition of a control with a cost 

effectiveness of approximately $5,600/ 

ton in this case. We are particularly 

concerned about unduly increasing 

electricity rates in Hawaii, given that 

these rates are already three times the 

national average according to the Energy 

Information Agency.44 Therefore, we 

propose to determine that no BART 

controls be required for Hill. 

Nonetheless, as explained below, our 

reasonable progress analysis shows that 

some additional SO2 controls are 

needed on the Big Island in order to 

protect against degradation of visibility 

and that Hill may be an appropriate 

source for such SO2 reductions. 

F. Reasonable Progress Goals for Hawaii 

In determining if reasonable progress 

is being made, states, or EPA if 

implementing a FIP, are required to 

consider the following factors 

established in section 169A of the CAA 

and in our Regional Haze Rule at 40 

CFR 51.308(d)(1)(i)(A): (1) The costs of 

compliance; (2) the time necessary for 

compliance; (3) the energy and non-air 

quality environmental impacts of 

compliance; and (4) the remaining 

useful life of any potentially affected 

sources (‘‘the four RP factors’’). Once 

these factors have been considered, the 

typical method for determining if a state 

is making reasonable progress is to use 

meteorological and air quality computer 

models to predict the visibility at Class 

I areas for the end of the planning 

period (2018). Those modeling results 

are then assessed to ensure that 

visibility is not degrading on the best 

days and that it is improving on the 

worst days at a reasonable rate, taking 

into consideration the relevant statutory 

factors, as well as the base period 

visibility conditions and the goal of zero 

anthropogenic visibility impairment by 

2064. 

In the case of Hawaii, though, a 

different method of determining 

reasonable progress is required. As 

explained above in sections III.C.1 and 

III.D, the dominant cause of visibility 

impairment at Hawaii’s Class I areas is 

sulfate compounds and over 96% of the 

sulfate emissions in Hawaii are from the 

volcano. However, because the volcanic 

eruptions vary greatly from year to year 

with no discernible pattern, it is 

impossible to predict future volcanic 

emissions. The emissions vary by 

hundreds of thousands of tons per year. 

As a result, there is little value in 

attempting to model visibility at the 

Class I areas in 2018. 

1. Identification of Pollutants for 

Reasonable Progress 

EPA has evaluated the six particulate 

pollutants (ammonium sulfate, 

ammonium nitrate, organic carbon (OC), 

elemental carbon (EC), fine soil and 

coarse mass (CM)) that contribute to 

visibility impairment at Hawaii’s two 

mandatory Class I federal areas. Sulfate 

is the primary cause of visibility 

impairment at each of Hawaii’s Class I 

Areas, and EPA has determined that the 

first Regional Haze Plan RP evaluation 

should focus primarily on significant 

sources of SO2 (sulfate precursor). NOX

(nitrate precursor) is a secondary 

concern, as it contributes to 9% of the 

visibility degradation on the 20% worst 

days at Haleakala. 

Coarse mass contributes to 9% of the 

visibility degradation at Haleakala, and 

is also of concern. However, the sources 

of coarse mass (CM) are uncertain 

because of emission inventory 

limitations associated with natural 

sources (predominantly wildfires) and 

uncertainty of fugitive (windblown) 

emissions. Because of the difficulty in 

attributing the sources of visibility 

impairment for this pollutant, EPA has 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
31708 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 103 / Tuesday, May 29, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

45See prevailing winds data from the Western 

Regional Climate Center (http://www.wrcc.dri.edu/ 

htmlfiles/westwinddir.html#HAWAII). 

46 Ibid. 

47See Table VII–1 of the FIP TSD. 

48See Emissions Inventory chapter of the FIP TSD 

for information on the development of these 

inventories. 

determined that it is not reasonable in 

this planning period to recommend 

emission control measures for coarse 

mass. Coarse mass contribution to 

visibility impairment, emissions 

sources, and potential control measures 

should be addressed in future Regional 

Haze plan updates. 

Because fine soil appears to be 

primarily attributable to international 

transport, EPA is proposing to 

determine that it is not reasonable in 

this planning period to recommend 

emission control measures for fine soil. 

Although organic and elemental carbon 

contribute to base year visibility 

impairment, recent monitoring at the 

Haleakala Crater (HACR1) monitoring 

site and the Hawaii Volcanoes (HAVO1) 

site show low contributions to visibility 

impairment from organic and elemental 

carbon. 

2. Determining Reasonable Progress 

Through Island-Specific Emissions 

Inventories 

Due to the absence of modeling to 

project visibility at Hawaii’s Class I 

areas in 2018, EPA is focusing its 

reasonable progress analysis on 

reducing anthropogenic emissions of 

visibility-impairing pollution. As 

explained in section III.D above, the key 

anthropogenic pollutants of concern are 

SO2 and NOX, especially SO2. We 

looked at trends in emissions of 

anthropogenic SO2 and NOX in order to 

judge if reasonable progress is being 

achieved. 

Rather than use a full statewide 

inventory to judge reasonable progress, 

we focused on the inventories for the 

islands where the Class I areas are 

located: Maui and the island of Hawaii 

(‘‘the Big Island’’). Population, 

economic activity and therefore 

anthropogenic emissions in the State of 

Hawaii are concentrated on the island of 

Oahu. But, as explained below, our 

analysis indicates that those emissions 

do not significantly impair visibility at 

the Class I areas. Prevailing winds at the 

Honolulu Airport on Oahu are from the 

east-north-east.45 The prevailing winds 

on Maui are from the northeast.46 The 

Class I areas are south and east of Oahu. 

Therefore, these trade winds tend to 

transport pollution from Oahu away 

from the Class I areas. In addition, 

modeling performed to estimate the 

visibility impact of currently operating 

individual sources of pollution on the 

Class I areas in the state indicates that 

even very large sources on Oahu have 

relatively small visibility impacts on 

Haleakela.47

Given these modeling results and the 

prevailing winds in Oahu and Maui for 

this planning period, we have focused 

our RP analysis on the islands that 

contain the Class I areas. Tables 16 and 

17 show the emission inventories for the 

islands of Maui and Hawaii.48

TABLE 16—MAUI ANTHROPOGENIC EMISSIONS INVENTORY

Source category 

2005 Inventory 2018 Inventory 

NOX SO2 NOX SO2

Point ................................................................................................................. 4,492 4,559 4,597 4,625 

Nonpoint ........................................................................................................... 462 481 548 571 

On-Road Mobile ............................................................................................... 2,957 47 758 10 

Non-Road Mobile ............................................................................................. 496 57 305 2 

Aircraft .............................................................................................................. 310 27 376 33 

Agricultural Burning ......................................................................................... 298 132 298 132 

Wildfires ........................................................................................................... 52 14 52 14

in/near port Marine .......................................................................................... 699 569 836 32 

Total .......................................................................................................... 9,765 5,887 7,770 5,420 

TABLE 17—HAWAII (BIG ISLAND) ANTHROPOGENIC EMISSIONS INVENTORY

Source category 

2005 Inventory 2018 Inventory 

NOX SO2 NOX SO2

Point ................................................................................................................. 1,036 4,551 1,736 5,266 

Nonpoint ........................................................................................................... 1,849 808 1,882 872 

On-Road Mobile ............................................................................................... 3,217 53 839 11 

Non-Road Mobile ............................................................................................. 784 95 428 1 

Aircraft .............................................................................................................. 177 18 207 21 

Agricultural Burning ......................................................................................... 2 0 2 0 

Wildfires ........................................................................................................... 1,712 469 1,712 469 

in/near port Marine .......................................................................................... 537 418 546 20 

Total .......................................................................................................... 9,314 6,412 7,352 6,661 

3. Four Factor Analysis for NOX Sources 

on Maui and the Big Island 

As shown in tables 16 and 17, mobile 

sources (on-road, non-road, aircraft and 

marine) constitute the largest fraction of 

base-year emissions on both islands 

(48%). The NOX emissions from these 

categories are projected to drop by over 

7,100 tpy between 2005 and 2018. These 

decreases are largely attributable to a 

dramatic reduction in emissions from 

on-road mobile sources, resulting from 

the replacement of older, higher 

emitting vehicles with new vehicles that 

must meet more stringent standards 

under the Clean Air Act. In addition to 

these requirements for on-road sources, 

EPA regulations also require newer nonVerDate Mar<15>2010 16:15 May 25, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\29MYP2.SGM 29MYP2

srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 103 / Tuesday, May 29, 2012 / Proposed Rules 31709 

49See FIP TSD Sections II.A., II.B, and III.B. 

50Subject-to-Best Available Retrofit Technology 

(BART) Modeling for the State of Hawaii, 

Application of the CALPUFF Modeling System, 

March 3, 2010, Alpine Geophysics, LLC. This 

modeled impact is higher than the BART modeling 

for this source due to inclusion of additional nonBART-eligible units. 

51BART Five-Factor Analysis Prepared for 

Hawaiian Electric Light Company, October 2010, 

Trinity Consultants. 

52 2009 was selected because it was consistent 

with the year used in the BART analysis for Hill. 

It is also a year where the actual capacity factors 

for the electric plants on the Big Island were 

comparable to the 4-year average. 

road and marine mobile sources to meet 

stricter control requirements. 

Collectively, these federal mobile source 

requirements will result in substantial 

NOX reductions over the course of the 

first planning period. 

Point sources, and in particular 

electric utility units, also comprise a 

significant portion of NOX emissions on 

both islands. However, considering the 

costs of compliance, the projected 20% 

net reduction in NOX emissions from 

existing regulations and the small 

contribution of nitrates to visibility 

impairment, EPA does not consider it 

reasonable to require additional NOX

controls for point sources in this 

planning period. 

The two remaining anthropogenic 

NOX emissions sources on the islands 

are agricultural burning and wildfires. 

EPA has evaluated the monitoring data 

for the Class I areas and determined that 

there is no evidence that agricultural 

burning is significantly affecting 

visibility at the Class I areas.49 Wildfires 

have been included in the 

anthropogenic emissions inventory 

because Hawaii DOH and EPA have not 

been able to determine if the fires had 

natural causes or not. However, 

imposing restrictions on wildfires 

would not have any appreciable effect, 

since they are, by definition, not 

intentional. 

In sum, taking into consideration the 

four RP factors and the relatively small 

contribution of NOX to visibility 

impairment at Hawaii’s Class I areas, we 

propose not to require any additional 

NOX controls for this implementation 

period. 

4. Four Factor Analysis for SO2

Emissions on Maui 

Our analysis shows that existing 

requirements under the Clean Air Act 

will result in net reductions of 

anthropogenic emissions of SO2 on 

Maui during this first planning period. 

So it is reasonable to assume that the 

visibility at Haleakala on the best days 

is not getting worse. Similarly, with this 

drop in emissions, it is reasonable to 

assume that the visibility on the worst 

days will improve. 

a. Mobile Source SO2 Emissions on 

Maui 

Mobile source SO2 emissions on Maui 

(on-road, non-road, aircraft and marine) 

are expected to decrease by 89% under 

current regulations, primarily as a result 

of reductions in marine emissions due 

to the ECA. This control measure is in 

addition to the benefits of fleet turnover 

as described above in the discussion of 

NOX. Given the existing benefits from 

the ECA and the fleet turnover benefits 

that take into account the four factors, 

we propose to determine that no 

additional SO2 reductions from mobile 

sources on Maui are needed in order to 

show reasonable progress. 

b. Point Source SO2 Emissions on Maui 

Point Sources comprise 77% of the 

SO2 emissions on Maui and are 

expected to increase slightly by 2018. 

However, this increase is more than 

offset by the reduction in SO2 from 

mobile source emissions. The principal 

point sources on Maui are the Kahului 

Power Plant and the Maalaea Power 

Plant, neither of which are BARTeligible. Maalea is downwind of the 

Class I area and its SO2 emissions are 

not expected to impact visibility at 

Haleakala. Prevailing winds should also 

transport emissions from Kahului away 

from Haleakala. However, CAlPUFF 

modeling indicates that this facility has 

a visibility impact of 0.667 deciviews at 

Haleakala.50 While this modeling is 

based on conservative assumptions that 

are unlikely to occur during normal 

operations, we believe this level of 

modeled impact is sufficient to warrant 

further scrutiny of this source under the 

four reasonable progress factors. 

TABLE 18—MAUI POINT SOURCE EMISSIONS

2005 2018 

NOX SO2 NOX SO2

MECO—Kahului Power Plant .......................................................................... 536 3,198 542 3,233 

Maalaea Generating Station ............................................................................ 3,255 913 3,291 923 

HC & S—Puunene Sugar Mill ......................................................................... 617 424 760 469 

Ameron Hawaii Camp 10 Quarry .................................................................... 4 0 4 0 

Maui Pineapple Co. ......................................................................................... 80 24 

Total .......................................................................................................... 4,492 4,559 4,597 4,625 

The first RP factor is costs of 

compliance. HECO (the electric utility) 

performed a detailed analysis of the cost 

of reducing SO2 emissions at the Hill as 

part of the BART analysis for that 

source.51 EPA reviewed and largely 

concurred with the results of that 

analysis. As with Hill, the most costeffective control measure at Kahului 

would be to reduce the amount of sulfur 

in the fuel. However, even that method 

is expensive. The lowest cost method 

for reducing SO2 emissions at these 

plants is to switch to a fuel with no 

more than 1% sulfur by weight. To 

estimate the total cost of the converting 

this plant to 1% fuel oil and estimate 

the impact of those costs on electric 

rates, EPA developed a base case 

scenario derived from 2009 operating 

conditions.52 This analysis, which is 

summarized in Table 19 below and 

further explained in our FIP TSD, 

indicates that the cost effectiveness of 

this control is approximately $4,200 per 

ton of SO2 reduced. 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
31710 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 103 / Tuesday, May 29, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

TABLE 19—COSTS AND BENEFITS FROM SWITCHING TO 1% SULFUR FUEL OIL

Kahului 

Baseline Weight % S ........................................................................................................................................................................... 1.57 

Baseline Fuel Consumption [gal/yr] ..................................................................................................................................................... 19,790,111 

Baseline Emissions [tons SO2/yr] ........................................................................................................................................................ 2,489 

New Fuel Weight % S ......................................................................................................................................................................... 1.00 

Cost Differential [$/gal] ........................................................................................................................................................................ 0.190 

Controlled Emissions [tons SO2/yr] ..................................................................................................................................................... 1,586 

Annual Costs [$/yr] .............................................................................................................................................................................. 3,760,121 

Annual Emission Reductions [tons SO2/yr] ......................................................................................................................................... 904 

Cost Efficiency [$/ton SO2 reduced] .................................................................................................................................................... 4,160 

The second RP factor is the time 

necessary for compliance. The switch to 

a lower sulfur residual fuel oil than is 

currently being burned does not require 

any capital investment or construction, 

but it does require time to get new fuel 

contracts into place with the new sulfur 

limits. It may take time for the fuel 

suppliers to secure the new fuel and it 

will take time for the current fuel 

inventory to be consumed. 

The third and fourth RP factors are 

the energy and non-air quality impacts 

of control measures and the remaining 

useful life of the source. EPA considered 

these factors in the context of the 

Hawaii Clean Energy Initiative that sets 

the goal of 70% clean energy by 2030. 

The Initiative includes the 2009 Clean 

Energy Omnibus Bill (ACT 155 (09), HB 

1464, signed June 25, 2009). This statute 

calls for 30% reduction in energy use 

via efficiency and increases the 

renewable portfolio standard to 40% by 

2030. EPA contracted with UNC and ICF 

to project the 2018 emissions of power 

plants considering the requirements of 

the Clean Energy Omnibus Bill. These 

projections are compared to the current 

2018 projections based on the most 

recent Integrated Resource Plan (IRP) for 

Hawaii electric utilities. This IRP 

predates the 2009 bill and so does not 

account for its requirements. Table 20 

compares the baseline emission 

projections for 2018, derived from the 

current IRP and the projections that take 

into account the goals of the Clean 

Energy Bill. 

TABLE 20—RANGE OF 2018 EMISSIONS PROJECTIONS FOR KEY POWER PLANTS ON MAUI

2018 SO2 Emissions 2018 SO2 Emissions 

IRP Clean Energy Bill 

Kahului Power Plant ................................................................................................................ 2,822 0 

Maalaea Generating Station .................................................................................................... 923 591 

The projections based on the goals of 

the Clean Energy Bill assume that the 

energy conservation and renewable 

energy goals will be met in a more or 

less even fashion year to year. So, by 

2018, most of these projects will be in 

place. Under this scenario, Kahului will 

cease operations by 2018 and Maalaea 

will operate at a significantly lower 

capacity factor and/or burn biofuels that 

contain much less sulfur than their 

current fuel. 

c. Conclusion of Reasonable Progress 

Analysis for SO2 Emissions on Maui 

Based on the foregoing analysis for 

the four RP factors, we propose to 

determine that it is not reasonable to 

require additional SO2 controls for point 

sources on Maui in this planning 

period. In addition, as mentioned above, 

electric utility rates in Hawaii are over 

three times the national average. 

Furthermore, mobile source SO2

emissions are projected to decrease 

significantly on Maui, mostly due to the 

ECA. The net result is that overall SO2

emissions are projected to decrease on 

Maui by nearly 8%. EPA proposes to 

find that this is a reasonable reduction 

for this planning period. Therefore, 

based on our consideration of the four 

RP factors, EPA proposes to determine 

that this level of emissions reduction is 

reasonable for this planning period. 

5. Four Factor Analysis for SO2

Emissions on the Big Island (Hawaii) 

Unlike on Maui, EPA projects that, 

without additional controls, SO2

emissions on the Big Island will 

increase by 3.9% between 2005 and 

2018. As noted above, SO2 is the key 

anthropogenic visibility-impairing 

pollutant at both of Hawaii’s Class I 

areas. Therefore, we propose to 

determine that additional SO2 control 

measures are needed on the Big Island 

in order to ensure reasonable progress 

toward the national goal of no 

anthropogenic visibility impairment. 

a. Mobile Source SO2 Emissions on the 

Big Island (Hawaii) 

Mobile source emissions of SO2 on 

the Big Island are projected to drop 91% 

under existing regulations, driven 

primarily by reductions in marine 

emissions due to the ECA. This control 

measure is in addition to the benefits of 

fleet turnover as described above in the 

discussion NOX. Given the existing 

benefits from the ECA and the fleet 

turnover benefits and taking into 

account the four reasonable progress 

factors, EPA proposes to determine that 

no additional SO2 reductions from 

mobile sources on the Big Island are 

needed in order to show reasonable 

progress during this first planning 

period. 

b. Point Source SO2 Emissions on the 

Big Island (Hawaii) 

Point sources account for roughly 

71% of the anthropogenic SO2

emissions on the Big Island. See Table 

17 above. Virtually all of these 

emissions come from electric power 

plants. See Table 21 below. Therefore, 

EPA considered all of the power plants 

on the Big Island as candidates for 

additional controls. 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 103 / Tuesday, May 29, 2012 / Proposed Rules 31711 

53BART Five-Factor Analysis Prepared for 

Hawaiian Electric Light Company, October 2010, 

Trinity Consultants. 

TABLE 21—HAWAII (BIG ISLAND) POINT SOURCE EMISSIONS

2005 2018 

NOX SO2 NOX SO2

HELCO—Kanoelehua Hill Generating Station ................................................ 514 2,822 595 3,264 

HELCO—Puna Power Plant ............................................................................ 241 1,345 279 1,556 

HELCO—Keahole Power Plant ....................................................................... 154 157 178 182 

HELCO—Shipman Power Plant ...................................................................... 38 222 28 166 

Pepeekeo Power Plant/9–16–10 Hu Honua Bioenergy .................................. ........................ ........................ 420 78 

Tradewinds Forest Products, LLC ................................................................... ........................ ........................ 133 15 

HELCO—Waimea Power Plant ....................................................................... 89 5 103 5 

Total .......................................................................................................... 1,036 4,551 1,736 5,266 

Because of their relatively low emission 

rates and distance from the Class I areas, 

EPA eliminated the Keahole and 

Waimea Power Plants and the Hu 

Honua Bioenergy facility. Due to their 

emission rates and positions close to 

and upwind of Hawaii Volcanoes NP, 

Hill, Shipman and Puna are the focus of 

the review. Alpine Geophysics 

estimated the visibility impact of these 

plants using the CalPUFF computer 

model. The results are summarized in 

Table 22. 

TABLE 22—MODELED VISIBILITY IMPACTS OF KEY POWER PLANTS ON HAWAII

Visibility Impact 

[delta dv] 

HAVO HALE 

HELCO—Kanoelehua Hill Generating Station ........................................................................................................ 2.334 0.808 

HELCO—Puna Power Plant .................................................................................................................................... 1.594 0.358 

HELCO—Shipman Power Plant .............................................................................................................................. 0.777 0.321 

These plants were also modeled with 

the same conservative assumptions as 

Kahului. The results for Hill and Puna 

indicate that these plants may be 

causing visibility impairment at Hawaii 

Volcanoes. In addition, the results 

indicate that Hill may be contributing to 

impairment at Haleakala and Shipman 

may be contributing to visibility 

impairment at Hawaii Volcanoes. 

Therefore, we further analyzed each of 

these plants in relation to the four RP 

factors. 

The first RP factor to consider is the 

cost of compliance. HECO (the electric 

utility) performed a detailed analysis of 

the cost of reducing SO2 emissions at 

Hill as part of the BART analysis for that 

source.53 EPA reviewed and largely 

concurred with the results of that 

analysis. As described previously, the 

most cost-effective control measure is to 

reduce the amount of sulfur in the fuel. 

This is also true for Shipman and Puna. 

Table 23 provides the full cost/benefit 

calculation for the Big Island sources. 

Based on this analysis, EPA estimates 

that the cost effectiveness of this control 

is approximately $5,500 per ton of SO2

reduced for sources on the Big Island. 

TABLE 23—COSTS AND BENEFITS FROM SWITCHING TO 1% SULFUR FUEL OIL

Hill Shipman Puna 

Baseline Weight % S ................................................................................................................... 1.57 1.57 1.57 

Baseline Fuel Consumption [gal/yr] ............................................................................................. 18,650,604 2,241,876 9,930,648 

Baseline Emissions [tons SO2/yr] ................................................................................................ 2,344 282 1,249 

New Fuel Weight % S ................................................................................................................. 1.00 1.00 1.00 

Cost Differential [$/gal] ................................................................................................................ 0.255 0.255 0.255 

Controlled Emissions [tons SO2/yr] ............................................................................................. 1493 180 796 

Annual Costs [$/yr] ...................................................................................................................... $4,755,904 $571,678 $2,532,315 

Annual Emission Reductions [tons SO2/yr] ................................................................................. 851 102 454 

Cost Efficiency [$/ton SO2 reduced] ............................................................................................ $5,587 $5,583 $5,583 

Total Annual Cost ................................................................................................................. $7,859,89 ........................ ........................

Total Annual Emissions Reduction ...................................................................................... 1,407 ........................ ........................

In Table 23, most of the assumptions 

are the same as in Table 19, but the cost 

differential is a bit higher due to the 

extra transport costs. We added 

0.065 $/gal to the estimate for a total of 

0.255 $/gal. The 0.065 $/gal estimate is 

derived from the six-year (2006–2011) 

cost differential between residual fuel 

oil delivered to Maui and the same oil 

delivered to the Big Island. 

With these assumptions, EPA 

estimates an annual increase in fuel 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
31712 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 103 / Tuesday, May 29, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

54Fuel Cost Screening Tool (r1 4–18–12), Energy 

Strategies Incorporated, April 18, 2012. 

55Clean Energy Bill estimates from Email from 

Juanita Haydel, ICF Corporation to Greg Nudd, U.S. 

EPA Region 9, April 4, 2012, with spreadsheet 

titled: ‘‘Hawaii Emissions 

Values_Revised_040412_FTC.xlsx’’. 

costs of over $7.9 million/year. EPA 

contracted with the energy economics 

consulting firm Energy Strategies to 

estimate the impact of these increased 

fuel costs on electric rates.54 Based on 

its analysis, these increased costs would 

translate into a roughly 2% increase in 

retail electric rates on the Big Island. 

This impact is higher than just 

controlling Hill alone because applying 

the controls to all three sources of 

concern would result in higher fuel 

costs for the system. The benefit of this 

change would be a reduction in SO2

emissions of at least 1,400 tons per year. 

The second factor to consider is the 

time necessary for compliance. The 

considerations here are the same as for 

Maui. 

The third and fourth factors to 

consider are the energy and non-air 

quality impacts of control measures and 

the remaining useful life of the source. 

As part of our consideration of these 

two factors, EPA is taking into account 

the anticipated results of the Clean 

Energy Bill described above. Table 24 

compares the emission projections for 

2018 based on the IRP and the 

projections that take into account the 

goals of the Clean Energy Bill.55

TABLE 24—RANGE OF 2018 EMISSIONS PROJECTIONS FOR KEY POWER PLANTS ON THE BIG ISLAND

[Tons per year] 

2018 SO2

emissions 

2018 SO2

emissions 

IRP Clean Energy 

Bill 

HELCO—Kanoelehua Hill Generating Station ........................................................................................................ 3,264 765 

HELCO—Puna Power Plant .................................................................................................................................... 1,566 365 

HELCO—Shipman Power Plant .............................................................................................................................. 166 0 

Under the Clean Energy Bill scenario, 

Shipman is projected to cease 

operations by 2018 and Hill and Puna 

are projected to be operating at a 

significantly lower capacity factor and/ 

or burning biofuels with a much lower 

sulfur content than their current fuel. 

However, as noted above, these 

projections are based on optimistic 

assumptions about implementation of 

the Clean Energy Bill. In addition, these 

requirements are not federally 

enforceable. Therefore, we cannot rely 

upon these projected reductions to 

demonstrate reasonable progress. 

c. Conclusion of Reasonable Progress 

Analysis for SO2 Emissions on the Big 

Island (Hawaii) 

In summary, without further control, 

emissions of SO2 on the Big Island are 

projected to increase by nearly 4% 

between 2005 and 2018. Therefore, 

additional, federally enforceable SO2

reductions are needed on the Big Island 

to ensure reasonable progress. EPA has 

identified the fuel oil-fired boilers at 

Hill, Shipman and Puna as appropriate 

sources for further control because they 

are upwind of the Hawaii Volcanoes NP, 

have high SO2 emissions and lack 

modern pollution controls. Based on our 

analysis of the four RP factors, EPA 

believes that the SO2 control measure 

for these sources should be structured 

so that it can be achieved through 

increased energy efficiency and 

increased reliance on renewable energy. 

Therefore, EPA is proposing to cap 

total emissions at the fuel oil-fired 

boilers at Hill, Shipman and Puna at 

3,550 tons of SO2 per year, beginning in 

January 1, 2018. This cap was derived 

from EPA’s analysis of the costs of 

switching these units to 1% sulfur fuel 

as shown in Table 23 and is equivalent 

to a reduction of 1,400 tons of SO2 per 

year from the total projected 2018 

emissions from these units. EPA is 

structuring this control requirement to 

allow HECO to minimize costs. If HECO 

implements the Hawaii Clean Energy 

Bill on schedule, it should be able to 

meet this cap with no additional costs 

to the ratepayers. If the cap has to be 

met with a lower sulfur fuel oil, HECO 

should be able to meet this cap at a cost 

of roughly $7.9 million/year. We are 

taking the other three factors into 

account by structuring the control 

requirement to be consistent with the 

State’s goals for energy conservation and 

reduced dependence on fossil fuels. 

Once this control measure is in place, 

total SO2 emissions on Big Island will 

decrease by at least 17% in the first 

planning period. Considering the four 

factors as shown above, the EPA 

considers this reduction to constitute 

reasonable progress toward the goal of 

eliminating anthropogenic visibility 

impairment at the Class I areas. 

d. Benefits of the Emission Control Area 

on Emissions from In Transit Marine 

Vessels 

In addition to reducing emissions 

from ships in and near ports, the ECA 

also significantly reduces emissions 

from ships traveling from port-to-port. 

The projected effect of the ECA on this 

category of marine emissions is shown 

in Table 25. EPA considered this as 

supplemental information when 

determining whether reasonable 

progress is being made with existing 

regulations. 

TABLE 25—BENEFITS OF THE ECA FROM IN TRANSIT SHIPPING WITHIN 150 KM OF THE CLASS I AREAS

Class I area 

2005 2018 

NOX SO2 NOX SO2

Haleakala ......................................................................................................... 2,740 2,610 3,419 141 

Hawaii Volcanoes ............................................................................................ 566 530 447 15 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 103 / Tuesday, May 29, 2012 / Proposed Rules 31713 

56As described above, there is acceptable 

modeling for point sources for the BART and the 

reasonable progress analysis for point sources. 

57Our analysis of these factors relies in part on 

work performed by our contractors, UNC and ICF, 

which is summarized in a document entitled, 

‘‘Technical Analysis for Arizona and Hawaii 

Regional Haze FIPs: Task 17: Information and 

Analysis to Support Hawaii’s Long-Term Strategy’’ 

(April 13, 2012) (hereinafter ‘‘Hawaii LTS Report’’). 

The Hawaii LTS Report is available in the docket 

for this action. 

58Nonattainment New Source Review (NSR) 

requirements apply to new major sources and major 

sources making major modifications in 

nonattainment areas. Hawaii has no nonattainment 

Continued 

6. Reasonable Progress Goals—2018 

Visibility Projections 

As explained above, there is no 

modeling available for this planning 

period that can reliably predict the 

change in visibility due to changes in 

the emission inventory for all sources 

(shipping, mobile sources, point 

sources, etc.).56 In the absence of 

reliable visibility modeling for 2018, 

EPA is using the island-specific 

inventories as a surrogate for judging 

whether reasonable progress is being 

made. 

In order to show how the future 

emission changes may affect the aerosol 

levels in each of the Class 1 areas, EPA 

estimated the effect that the changes in 

the island-specific inventories for NOX

and SO2 will have on the levels of 

nitrate and sulfate for each of the Class 

1 areas. The details of this analysis are 

set forth in the TSD. 

At Hawaii Volcanoes NP, the 

projected visibility for 2018 is slightly 

worse without the proposed FIP control 

measures. With the proposed FIP 

control measure, there is a slight 

improvement in visibility conditions 

compared to the year 2005 for both the 

20% best and 20% worst days. At 

Haleakala NP, there is a slight 

improvement in visibility conditions 

compared to the year 2005 for both the 

20% best and 20% worst days. 

7. Visibility Improvement Compared to 

URP and Number of Years to Reach 

Natural Conditions 

The amount of improvement needed 

to achieve the URP for 2018 at Haleakala 

NP is 1.38 delta deciview. Based on the 

projections of visibility, discussed 

above, the amount of improvement by 

2018 would be 0.29 delta deciview. This 

would result in a 2018 level of visibility 

of 13.0 deciview at Haleakala. 

The amount of improvement needed 

to achieve the URP for 2018 for Hawaii 

NP is 2.73 delta deciview. Based on the 

projections of visibility, discussed 

above, the amount of improvement by 

2018 would be 0.18 delta deciview. This 

would result in a 2018 level of visibility 

of 18.7 deciview. 

Therefore, the URP will not be met at 

either NP. Based on our analysis of the 

four reasonable progress factors above, 

we propose to determine that the rate of 

progress for the implementation plan to 

attain natural conditions by 2064 is not 

reasonable and that our progress goals 

are reasonable. 

EPA has calculated the number of 

years it would take to reach natural 

conditions, based on the rate of 

visibility improvement in this first 

planning period. Because the baseline 

conditions include the effect of the 

emissions from the volcano, the 

calculation of number of years to reach 

natural conditions by control of 

anthropogenic emission does not 

represent a realistic scenario in this 

case. Based on the projected rate of 

improvement at Haleakala of 0.021 

deciview per year, natural conditions 

would be met in 280 years. Based upon 

the projected rate of improvement at 

Hawaii Volcanoes NP, natural 

conditions would be met in over 800 

years. If the volcano stops erupting, 

natural conditions would be met 

significantly sooner. 

G. Long-Term Strategy 

1. Interstate Consultation Requirement 

Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.308(d)(3)(i), if 

a state has emissions that are reasonably 

anticipated to contribute to visibility 

impairment in any mandatory Class I 

Federal area located in another state or 

states, each of the relevant states must 

consult with the other(s). Hawaii lies 

approximately 2,390 miles southwest of 

the Continental United States and has 

been included by EPA in the regional 

haze program, ‘‘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). 

Therefore, we propose to determine that 

emissions from Hawaii are not 

reasonably anticipated to contribute to 

visibility impairment in any mandatory 

Class I Federal area located in another 

state or states. We also propose to 

determine that no emissions from any 

other state are reasonably anticipated to 

contribute to visibility impairment in 

either of Hawaii’s mandatory Class I 

Federal areas. 

The Regional Haze Rule also requires 

any state that has participated in a 

regional planning process, to ‘‘ensure it 

has included all measures needed to 

achieve its apportionment of emission 

reduction obligations agreed upon 

through that process’’ and to 

demonstrate the technical basis for this 

apportionment. 40 CFR 51.308(d)(3)(ii) 

and (iii). As noted above, both EPA and 

the state of Hawaii participated in the 

WRAP. The WRAP did not identify any 

obligation for emission reductions on 

the part of Hawaii. Therefore, we 

propose to determine that no additional 

emissions reductions are necessary in 

Hawaii to meet the progress goal for any 

mandatory Class I Federal area outside 

of Hawaii. 

2. Identification of Anthropogenic 

Sources of Visibility Impairment 

Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.308(d)(3)(iv), 

States are required to identify all 

anthropogenic sources of visibility 

impairment considered in developing 

the long-term strategy, including major 

and minor stationary sources, mobile 

sources, and area sources. As explained 

in section III.C above, we have 

considered each of these categories in 

developing our long-term strategy. 

3. Other Long Term-Strategy 

Requirements 

The RHR requires that a state consider 

the following factors in developing an 

LTS: (a) Emission reductions due to 

ongoing air pollution control programs, 

including measures to address RAVI; (b) 

measures to mitigate the impacts of 

construction activities; (c) emissions 

limitations and schedules for 

compliance to achieve the RPG; (d) 

source retirement and replacement 

schedules; (e) smoke management 

techniques for agricultural and forestry 

management purposes including plans 

as currently exist within the state for 

these purposes; (f) enforceability of 

emissions limitations and control 

measures; and (g) the anticipated net 

effect on visibility due to projected 

changes in point, area, and mobile 

source emissions over the period 

addressed by the LTS. 40 CFR 

51.308(d)(3)(v). We address each of the 

factors below.57

a. Emissions Reductions Due to Ongoing 

Air Pollution Programs 

Our LTS incorporates emission 

reductions due to a number of ongoing 

air pollution control programs. 

i. Prevention of Significant Deterioration 

Rules 

One of the primary regulatory tools 

for addressing visibility impairment 

from industrial sources under the Act is 

the Prevention of Significant 

Deterioration (PSD) program. The PSD 

requirements apply to new major 

sources and major sources making a 

major modification in attainment 

areas.58 Among other things, the PSD 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
31714 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 103 / Tuesday, May 29, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

areas at this time and therefore the nonattainment 

NSR requirements are not relevant. 

59Excerpted from FIP TSD Table III–3. 

60Excerpted from FIP TSD Table III–3. 

61See Hawaii LTS Report, §§ 2.2. 

62The Hawaii SIP currently contains an earlier 

version of this rule, HAR § 11–60–17. See 40 CFR 

52.620(c) (2011). EPA has proposed to replace the 

old rule with HAR § 11–60.1–2. See 77 FR 25111 

(April 27, 2012). 

63The Hawaii SIP currently contains an earlier 

version of this rule, HAR § 11–60–1. See 40 CFR 

52.620(c) (2011). EPA has proposed to replace the 

old rule with HAR § 11–60.1–1. See 77 FR 25111 

(April 27, 2012). 

64The Hawaii SIP contains an earlier version of 

this rule, HAR § 11–60–26. See 40 CFR 52.620(c) 

(2011). 

permit program is designed to protect 

air quality and visibility in Class 1 

Areas by requiring best available control 

technology (BACT) and involving the 

public in permit decisions. EPA has 

promulgated a PSD FIP for Hawaii to 

address the CAA’s PSD requirements. 

See 40 CFR 52.632(b) (‘‘PSD FIP’’). DOH 

has been delegated authority to 

implement this FIP since 1983. The FIP 

provides procedures, including 

requirements for input from the relevant 

FLM, for considering potential visibility 

impacts to Class I areas from new major 

stationary source or major modifications 

of existing major stationary sources. See 

40 CFR 52.21(p)(1). 

ii. Reasonably Attributable Visibility 

Impairment Rules 

EPA has promulgated a FIP for 

Hawaii, which incorporates the 

provisions of 40 CFR 52.26, 52.27, 

52.28, 52.29, to address RAVI in Hawaii. 

See 40 CFR 52.633. There have been no 

certifications of RAVI in the Hawaii 

Class I areas, nor are any Hawaii sources 

affected by the RAVI provisions at this 

time. 

iii. On-going Implementation of Federal 

Mobile Source Rules 

Mobile source NOX and SO2

emissions are expected to decrease in 

Hawaii from 2002 to 2018, due to 

several existing federal mobile source 

regulations. As shown in Table 26, these 

rules will result in significant 

reductions in NOX and SO2 emissions 

from both on road and non-road mobile 

sources. 

TABLE 26—STATEWIDE INVENTORY OF NOX AND SO2 EMISSIONS FROM ON-ROAD AND NON-ROAD MOBILE SOURCES: 

2005, 2008 AND 2018 59

Source category 

2005 2008 2018 

NOX SO2 NOX SO2 NOX SO2

On-Road Mobile Sources ........................ 20,642 321 14,239 97 5,058 72 

Non-Road Mobile Sources ....................... 4,750 534 4,573 78 3,090 7 

iv. North American Emissions Control 

Area 

An additional air pollution control 

program that will limit emissions of 

visibility-impairing pollutants in Hawaii 

is the North American Emissions 

Control Area (NA ECA). The United 

States Government, together with 

Canada and France, established the NA 

ECA under the auspices of Annex VI of 

the International Convention for the 

Prevention of Pollution from Ships 

(MARPOL Annex VI), a treaty 

developed by the International Maritime 

Organization. This ECA will require use 

of lower sulfur fuels in ships operating 

within 200 nautical miles of the 

majority of the U.S. and Canadian 

coastline, including the U.S. Gulf Coast 

and Hawaii, beginning in August 2012. 

The ECA is expected to significantly 

reduce both NOX and SO2 emissions 

from marine sources in Hawaii during 

the first implementation period. These 

reductions are reflected in Table 27. 

TABLE 27—STATEWIDE INVENTORY OF NOX AND SO2 EMISSIONS FROM MARINE SOURCES: 2005, 2008 AND 2018 60

Source category 

2005 2008 2018 

NOX SO2 NOX SO2 NOX SO2

In and Near Port Marine .......................... 2,572 2,201 12,432 2,638 2,097 117 

Underway Marine (<30nm) ...................... 3,052 1,418 562 282 1,867 68 

b. Measures to Mitigate the Impacts of 

Construction Activities 

Potential sources of emissions from 

construction activities include exhaust 

from fuel-burning equipment on the 

site; vehicles working on the site, 

delivering materials, and hauling away 

excavate; employee vehicles; and 

fugitive dust from exposed earth, 

material stockpiles, and vehicles on 

roadways, especially unpaved site 

accesses. These activities can result in 

emissions of NOX, SOX, particulate 

matter (PM10 and PM2.5 from engine 

exhaust and as fugitive dust from 

roadways and material handling) and 

primary organic aerosols.61

Hawaii DOH regulates emissions of 

air pollutants, including construction 

emissions, under Chapter 11–60.1 of 

Hawaii Administrative Rules (HAR). 

These rules generally prohibit the 

emission of any ‘‘regulated air 

pollutant’’ without the written approval 

of DOH. HAR § 11–60.1–2.62 ‘‘Regulated 

air pollutant’’ is defined to include, 

among other things, NOX, VOCs and 

‘‘any air pollutant for which a national 

or state ambient air quality standard has 

been promulgated’’ (e.g., SO2, PM10 and 

PM2.5). HAR § 11–60.1–2.63 Fugitive 

dust emissions are specifically regulated 

under HAR § 11–60.1–33,64 which 

requires the use of ‘‘reasonable 

precautions’’ to mitigate the impacts of 

visible fugitive dust. ‘‘Fugitive dust’’ is 

defined as ‘‘the emission of solid 

airborne particulate matter from any 

source other than combustion.’’ HAR 

§ 11–60.1–1. 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 103 / Tuesday, May 29, 2012 / Proposed Rules 31715 

65 ‘‘Final Emission Inventory Report: Data 

Population for Air System for Hawaii Emissions 

Data (AirSHED)’’, Environ International 

Corporation, (April 12, 2010) (hereinafter ‘‘Environ 

Inventory’’) Appendix D, Figures 2, 3 and 4. 

66 ‘‘Technical Analysis for Hawaii’s Regional 

Haze FIP Report—Task 16: On-Road Mobile 

Emissions Inventory’’, ICF International, March 23, 

2012. 

67The Hawaii SIP currently contains an earlier 

version of this rule, HAR § 11–60–25. See 40 CFR 

52.620(c) (2011). EPA has proposed to replace the 

old rule with HAR § 11–60.1–34. See 77 FR 25111 

(April 27, 2012). 

68Technical Analysis for Arizona and Hawaii 

Regional Haze FIPs: Task 17: Information and 

Analysis to Support Hawaii’s Long-Term Strategy 

University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, ICF 

International, April 13, 2012. 

69HRS § 269–92. 

70 ‘‘Energy Agreement Among the State of Hawaii, 

Division of Consumer Advocacy of the Department 

of Commerce & Consumer Affairs, and Hawaiian 

Electric Companies.’’ (Oct. 2008) (hereinafter 

‘‘Energy Agreement’’). 

71Section 11 of the Energy Agreement. 

72The Hawaii SIP currently contains an earlier 

version of this rule, HAR § 11–60–19. See 40 CFR 

52.620(c) (2011). EPA has proposed to replace the 

old rule with HAR § 11–60.1–53. See 77 FR 25111 

(April 27, 2012). 

73The Hawaii SIP currently contains an earlier 

version of this rule, HAR § 11–60–22. See 40 CFR 

52.620(c) (2011). EPA has proposed to replace the 

old rule with HAR § 11–60.1–56. See 77 FR 25111 

(April 27, 2012). 

74The Hawaii SIP contains an earlier version of 

this rule, HAR § 11–60–21. See 40 CFR 52.620(c) 

(2011). 

75See FIP TSD Sections II.A, II.B and III.B. 

In addition to fugitive dust, another 

potential source of visibility-impairing 

pollutants from construction activities is 

fuel-burning construction equipment 

and vehicles. Emissions from 

construction equipment are reflected in 

the non-road mobile source category of 

the Hawaii Emissions Inventory,65

while emissions from trucks and other 

construction-related vehicles are 

reflected in the on-road category.66 As 

described in section III.C above, 

statewide NOX and SO2 from the onroad and non-road mobile source 

categories are expected to decrease 

significantly between 2005 and 2018, as 

new federal mobile source regulations 

are implemented. In addition to the 

federal mobile source regulations, 

emissions from motor vehicles are 

regulated under HAR § 11–60.1–34.67

Given the significant decreases in this 

category expected from ongoing 

pollution control measures, we propose 

that no additional measures are needed 

to mitigate the impact of construction 

activities during this time period. 

However, as noted above, coarse mass 

contributes to 9% of the visibility 

degradation on the 20% worst days and 

17% on the 20% best days at Haleakala. 

It is unknown how much of this coarse 

mass derives from fugitive dust 

emissions. Therefore, for the next 

planning period, a detailed study of the 

source contribution to coarse mass and 

soil measured at the Haleakala Crater 

Class 1 area monitors is needed. 

Depending on the results of this study, 

further regulation of fugitive dust 

emissions, including construction 

emissions, may be appropriate. 

c. Emission Limitations and Schedules 

for Compliance 

As explained above, we are proposing 

to place a 3,550 tpy cap on SO2

emissions from the residual fuel-fired 

boilers at Hill, Shipman and Puna on 

the Big Island, which represents a 1,400 

tpy reduction from the 2018 projected 

emission from these units. We propose 

that this emission limit, together with 

the ongoing requirements described 

above, will be sufficient to meet the 

RPGs for the first implementation 

period. 

d. Sources Retirement and Replacement 

Schedules 

In order to assess potential source 

retirements and replacements during the 

first implementation period, our 

contractor, ICF, reviewed the last set of 

Integrated Resource Plans (IRPs) for 

HECO and its subsidiaries. In its IRP, 

HECO indicated that Wauai Units 3 and 

4 would be placed into emergency 

reserve or retired in 2011 and 2014, 

respectively. HELCO, MECO, and Kauai 

Island Utility Cooperative (KIUC) had 

no plans to retire any of their units in 

their last IRP.68

It should be noted, however, that 

existing state legislation and voluntary 

measures by the Hawaiian utilities are 

likely to result in further reductions in 

oil-fired electricity generating units in 

Hawaii by 2018. In particular, Hawaii’s 

current Renewable Portfolio Standard 

(RPS) requires each electric utility 

company in the state to achieve the 

following percentages of renewable 

electrical energy sales: 

• 10% of its net electricity sales by 

December 31, 2010; 

• 15% of its net electricity sales by 

December 31, 2015; 

• 25% of its net electricity sales by 

December 31, 2020; and 

• 40% of its net electricity sales by 

December 31, 2030.69

Although the Hawaii RPS is a state law 

and is not federally enforceable, it is 

likely to result in significant reductions 

in SO2 and NOX emissions over the next 

twenty years, as existing fossil fuel-fired 

generation is replaced with renewables. 

In addition, as part of the Hawaii 

Clean Energy Initiative, the State of 

Hawaii, Division of Consumer Advocacy 

of the Department of Commerce & 

Consumer Affairs, and the Hawaiian 

Electric Companies have entered into an 

‘‘Energy Agreement’’, which includes an 

extensive list of renewable energy 

commitments and related provisions.70

Among other things, the Agreement 

provides that, ‘‘the utilities will ‘retire’ 

the older and less efficient fossil-fired 

firm capacity generating units by 

removing such units from normal daily 

operating service as expeditiously as 

possible.’’ 71 Although this is not a 

federally enforceable requirement, we 

expect that the output of the utilities’ 

existing oil-fired units will decrease 

over the period of the first 

implementation period and will be 

replaced by renewable energy 

generation. 

e. Agricultural and Forestry Smoke 

Management Techniques 

Hawaii’s agricultural fire emissions 

come from crop waste combustion of 

over roughly 30,000 acres of sugarcane, 

which is cultivated mostly on Maui. 

Burn permits are required under HAR 

§ 11–60.1–53 72 and records must be 

kept in accordance with such permits 

under HAR § 11–60.1–56.73 While there 

is no smoke management plan as such, 

widespread and persistent haze 

conditions are used as a criterion for 

establishment of a ‘‘no-burn’’ period by 

Hawaii DOH. See HAR § 11–60.1–55.74

Given our focus on SO2 as the dominant 

visibility-impairing pollutant for this 

implementation period, and our finding 

that there is no evidence of agricultural 

burning contributing to haze at Class I 

areas,75 we propose to determine that no 

further controls on agricultural burning 

or forest fires are reasonable at this time. 

f. Enforceability of Control Measures 

40 CFR 51.308(d)(3)(v)(F) of the 

Regional Haze Rule requires us to 

ensure that emission limitations and 

control measures used to meet RPGs are 

enforceable. As described above, we are 

proposing that cumulative SO2

emissions from the residual fuel fired 

boilers at the Hill, Shipman and Puna 

plants be limited to 3,550 tons per year 

(tpy) (rolling 12-month average). We 

propose that enforceability of this 

control measure will be ensured through 

the following measurement, 

recordkeeping and reporting 

requirements: 

The sources will be required to 

measure the sulfur content (weight 

percent), heat value (million British 

thermal units per gallon (MMBtu/gal)) 

and total gallons of fuel burned at each 

of the affected units. Based on these 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
31716 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 103 / Tuesday, May 29, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

76 ‘‘Visibility Monitoring Guidance,’’ EPA–454/R– 

99–003, June 1999, http://www.epa.gov/ttn/amtic/

files/ambient/visible/r-99-003.pdf. 

77 ‘‘Guidance for Tracking Progress Under the 

Regional Haze Rule,’’ EPA–454/B–03–004, 

September 2003, available at http://www.epa.gov/

ttncaaa1/t1/memoranda/rh_tpurhr_gd.pdf. Figure 

1–2 shows the monitoring network on a map, while 

Table A–2 lists Class I areas and corresponding 

monitors. 

78 ‘‘Spatial and Seasonal Patterns and Temporal 

Variability of Haze and its Constituents in the 

United States,’’ Report V, ISSN 0737–5352–87, June 

2011. 

79Comparison of Haleakala NP HALE1 and 

HACR1 IMPROVE Monitoring Site 2007–2008 Data 

Sets, March 30, 2012, State of Hawaii, Department 

of Health, Clean Air Branch. 

80Review of VIEWS2.0 2009–2010 Haleakala 

National Park Organic and Elemental Carbon Data, 

March 30, 2012, State of Hawaii, Department of 

Health, Clean Air Branch. 

parameters, the SO2 emissions for each 

unit will be calculated on a monthly 

basis, then the rolling 12-month average 

of the total emissions for all units will 

be calculated. All of this information 

must be recorded and these records 

must be maintained for at least five 

years. In addition, all of this information 

must be reported to Hawaii DOH and 

EPA on an annual basis. Finally, any 

exceedance of the 3,550 tpy cumulative 

emission limit for these 5 units must be 

reported to Hawaii DOH and EPA 

within 30 days. 

g. Anticipated Net Effect on Visibility 

Due to Projected Changes in Point, Area, 

and Mobile Source Emissions over the 

next 10 years 

As described above, total statewide 

anthropogenic emissions of NOX and 

VOC are projected to decrease between 

2005 and 2018. However, anthropogenic 

SO2 emissions are expected to increase 

between 2005 and 2018, largely due to 

increased emissions from point sources. 

Our analysis of the monitoring data 

indicates that visibility impacts of SO2

emissions are of greater concern in 

Hawaii’s Class I areas than the impacts 

of either NOX or VOC. The increase in 

anthropogenic SO2 emissions indicates 

that some additional pollution 

reductions are needed to ensure 

reasonable progress toward the goal of 

eliminating anthropogenic visibility 

impairment in Hawaii’s mandatory class 

I areas. Our proposal to achieve these 

reductions is explained in section III.F.5 

of this notice. 

H. Coordination of RAVI and Regional 

Haze Requirements 

Our visibility regulations direct states 

to coordinate their RAVI LTS and 

monitoring provisions with those for 

regional haze, as explained in section 

IV.G, above. Under our RAVI 

regulations, the RAVI portion of a state 

SIP must address any integral vistas 

identified by the FLMs pursuant to 40 

CFR 51.304. See 40 CFR 51.302. An 

integral vista is defined in 40 CFR 

51.301 as a ‘‘view perceived from within 

the mandatory Class I federal area of a 

specific landmark or panorama located 

outside the boundary of the mandatory 

Class I federal area.’’ Visibility in any 

mandatory Class I Federal area includes 

any integral vista associated with that 

area. The FLMs did not identify any 

integral vistas in Hawaii. In addition, 

there have been no certifications of 

RAVI in the Hawaii Class I areas, nor are 

any Hawaii sources affected by the 

RAVI provisions. 

Because Hawaii has not submitted a 

SIP to address RAVI, EPA previously 

promulgated a FIP for Hawaii, which 

incorporates the provisions of 40 CFR 

52.26, 52.27, 52.28, 52.29 to address 

RAVI. We propose to find that the 

Regional Haze FIP appropriately 

supplements and augments EPA’s FIP 

for RAVI visibility provisions by 

updating the monitoring and LTS 

provisions to address regional haze. We 

discuss the relevant monitoring 

provisions further below. 

I. Monitoring Strategy 

40 CFR 51.308(d)(4) requires that the 

FIP contain a monitoring strategy for 

measuring, characterizing, and reporting 

regional haze visibility impairment that 

is representative of all mandatory Class 

I Federal areas within the state. This 

monitoring strategy must be coordinated 

with the monitoring strategy required in 

40 CFR 51.305 for RAVI. As 40 CFR 

51.308(d)(4) notes, compliance with this 

requirement may be met through 

participation in the IMPROVE network. 

40 CFR 51.308(d)(4)(i) further requires 

the establishment of any additional 

monitoring sites or equipment needed to 

assess whether RPGs to address regional 

haze for all mandatory Class I Federal 

areas within the state are being 

achieved. Consistent with EPA’s 

monitoring regulations for RAVI and 

regional haze, EPA will rely on the 

IMPROVE network for compliance 

purposes, in addition to any RAVI 

monitoring that may be needed in the 

future. Further information on 

monitoring methods and monitor 

locations can be found in the docket.76 77

The most recent report also can be 

found in the docket.78 Therefore, we 

propose to find that we have satisfied 

the requirements of 40 CFR 51.308(d)(4) 

enumerated in this paragraph. 

Currently there are two IMPROVE 

monitoring sites operating in or near the 

Haleakala NP. The Haleakala (HALE1) 

IMPROVE monitoring site is located 

outside of the Haleakala NP near the 

Maui Central Valley, at an elevation of 

1153 meters. The HALE1 IMPROVE 

monitoring site began operation at end 

of 2000, and will end operation in May, 

2012. The Haleakala Crater (HACR1) 

IMPROVE monitoring site is at the 

park’s Western boundary, at an 

elevation of 2158 meters. The HACR1 

IMPROVE monitoring site began 

operation in 2007. In this proposal, EPA 

is proposing to use monitoring data 

from the HALE1 monitoring site as a 

basis for establishing baseline visibility, 

because the HACR1 site was not yet in 

operation for the base year time period 

of 2000–2004. Future regional haze 

planning efforts need to be based on 

data collected at the HACR1 site. 

Hawaii DOH has prepared two reports 

comparing the two IMPROVE 

monitoring sites at Haleakala NP,79

including a detailed comparison of 

organic and elemental carbon data at the 

two sites.80 The reports find that the 

most significant difference between data 

measured at the two sites appears to be 

that the HALE1 site has higher levels of 

organic and elemental carbon. The 

levels of the other species are generally 

lower at the HACR1 IMPROVE 

monitoring site than at the HALE1 

monitoring site. The reports conclude 

that, based on the available data, the 

HACR1 IMPROVE monitoring site is 

more representative of visibility 

conditions within the Haleakala NP 

than the HALE1 IMPROVE monitoring 

site. 

J. Federal Land Manager Consultation 

and Coordination 

Under section 169A(d) of the Clean 

Air Act, we are required to consult with 

the appropriate FLM(s) before holding a 

public hearing on the Hawaii Regional 

Haze FIP. We must also include a 

summary of the FLMs’ conclusions and 

recommendations in this notice. Both 

EPA and Hawaii DOH have consulted 

informally with the FLMs throughout 

the development of the Hawaii Regional 

Haze FIP. Most recently, we consulted 

with the FLMs by phone on March 26 

and April 5, 2012. 

In addition, 40 CFR 51.308(i)(4) 

specifies the regional haze FIP must 

provide procedures for continuing 

consultation with the FLMs on the 

implementation of the visibility 

protection program required by 40 CFR 

subpart P, including development and 

review of implementation plan revisions 

and 5-year progress reports, and on the 

implementation of other programs 

having the potential to contribute to 

impairment of visibility in mandatory 

Class I Federal areas. We intend to 

continue to consult with the FLMs 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 103 / Tuesday, May 29, 2012 / Proposed Rules 31717 

81Hawaiian Electric Industries, Inc. and Hawaiian 

Electric Company, Inc., Form 10–K for the fiscal 

year ended December 31, 2011 ‘‘Generation 

Statistics.’’ 

regarding all aspects of the visibility 

protection program and we encourage 

Hawaii to do the same. 

IV. Proposed Action 

EPA is proposing to establish an 

emissions cap of 3,550 tons of SO2 per 

year from the fuel oil-fired boilers at 

Hill, Shipman and Puna, beginning in 

January 1, 2018. This represents a 

reduction of 1,400 tons per year from 

the total projected 2018 annual 

emissions of SO2 from these facilities. 

We propose to determine that this 

control measure, in conjunction with 

SO2 and NOX emissions control 

requirements that are already in place, 

will ensure that reasonable progress is 

made during this first planning period 

toward the national goal of no 

anthropogenic visibility impairment by 

2064 at Hawaii’s two Class I areas. 

V. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory 

Planning and Review 

This proposed action is not a 

‘‘significant regulatory action’’ under 

the terms of Executive Order 12866 (58 

FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and is 

therefore not subject to review under 

Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 (76 

FR 3821, January 21, 2011). The 

proposed Hawaii Regional Haze FIP 

requires implementation of emissions 

controls for SO2 on specific units at 

three sources. Since EPA is proposing 

direct emission controls on selected 

units at only three sources, the Hawaii 

Regional Haze FIP is not a rule of 

general applicability. 

B. Paperwork Reduction Act 

This proposed action does not impose 

an information collection burden under 

the provisions of the Paperwork 

Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. 

Under the Paperwork Reduction Act, a 

‘‘collection of information’’ is defined as 

a requirement for ‘‘answers to * * * 

identical reporting or recordkeeping 

requirements imposed on ten or more 

persons. * * * ’’ 44 U.S.C. 3502(3)(A). 

Because the proposed FIP applies to just 

three facilities, the Paperwork 

Reduction Act does not apply. See 5 

CFR 1320(c). 

Burden means the total time, effort, or 

financial resources expended by persons 

to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose 

or provide information to or for a 

Federal agency. This includes the time 

needed to review instructions; develop, 

acquire, install, and utilize technology 

and systems for the purposes of 

collecting, validating, and verifying 

information, processing and 

maintaining information, and disclosing 

and providing information; adjust the 

existing ways to comply with any 

previously applicable instructions and 

requirements; train personnel to be able 

to respond to a collection of 

information; search data sources; 

complete and review the collection of 

information; and transmit or otherwise 

disclose the information. 

An agency may not conduct or 

sponsor, and a person is not required to 

respond to a collection of information 

unless it displays a currently valid 

Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB) control number. The OMB 

control numbers for our regulations in 

40 CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9. 

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) 

generally requires an agency to prepare 

a regulatory flexibility analysis of any 

rule subject to notice and comment 

rulemaking requirements under the 

Administrative Procedure Act or any 

other statute unless the agency certifies 

that the rule will not have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities. Small entities 

include small businesses, small 

organizations, and small governmental 

jurisdictions. 

For purposes of assessing the impacts 

of today’s proposed rule on small 

entities, small entity is defined as: (1) A 

small business as defined by the Small 

Business Administration’s (SBA) 

regulations at 13 CFR 121.201; (2) a 

small governmental jurisdiction that is a 

government of a city, county, town, 

school district or special district with a 

population of less than 50,000; and (3) 

a small organization that is any not-forprofit enterprise which is independently 

owned and operated and is not 

dominant in its field. 

After considering the economic 

impacts of this proposed action on small 

entities, I certify that this proposed 

action will not have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities. The three 

sources in question are electric 

generating plants that are owned by the 

Hawaii Electric Light Company, Inc. 

(HELCO), which is an electric utility 

subsidiary of HECO. Pursuant to 13 CFR 

121.201, footnote 1, an electric utility 

firm is small if, including its affiliates, 

it is primarily engaged in the generation, 

transmission, and/or distribution of 

electric energy for sale and its total 

electric output for the preceding fiscal 

year did not exceed 4 million megawatt 

hours (MWH). In the fiscal year ended 

December 31, 2011, HELCO generated or 

purchased a total of 1,186.6 MWH.81

Therefore, it is not a small business. 

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

(UMRA) 

This rule does not contain a Federal 

mandate that may result in expenditures 

that exceed the inflation-adjusted 

UMRA threshold of $100 million by 

State, local, or Tribal governments or 

the private sector in any 1 year. Thus, 

this rule is not subject to the 

requirements of sections 202 or 205 of 

UMRA. 

This rule is also not subject to the 

requirements of section 203 of UMRA 

because it contains no regulatory 

requirements that might significantly or 

uniquely affect small governments. 

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism 

The proposed Hawaii Regional Haze 

FIP does not have federalism 

implications. This action will not have 

substantial direct effects on the States, 

on the relationship between the national 

government and the States, or on the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government, as specified in 

Executive Order 13132. In this action, 

EPA is fulfilling its statutory duty under 

CAA Section 110(c) to promulgate a 

Regional Haze FIP following its finding 

that Hawaii had failed to submit a 

regional haze SIP. Thus, Executive 

Order 13132 does not apply to this 

action. In the spirit of Executive Order 

13132, and consistent with EPA policy 

to promote communications between 

EPA and State and local governments, 

EPA specifically solicits comment on 

this proposed rule from State and local 

officials. 

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation 

and Coordination With Indian Tribal 

Governments 

This proposed rule does not have 

tribal implications, as specified in 

Executive Order 13175. It will not have 

substantial direct effects on tribal 

governments. Thus, Executive Order 

13175 does not apply to this rule. 

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of 

Children From Environmental Health 

Risks and Safety Risks 

EPA interprets EO 13045 as applying 

only to those regulatory actions that 

concern health or safety risks, such that 

the analysis required under section 

5–501 of the EO has the potential to 

influence the regulation. This action is 

not subject to EO 13045 because it 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
31718 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 103 / Tuesday, May 29, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

implements specific standards 

established by Congress in statutes. 

However, to the extent this proposed 

rule will limit emissions of SO2, the rule 

will have a beneficial effect on 

children’s health by reducing air 

pollution. 

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions 

Concerning Regulations That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use 

This action is not subject to Executive 

Order 13211 (66 FR 28355 (May 22, 

2001)), because it is not a significant 

regulatory action under Executive Order 

12866. 

I. National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act 

Section 12 of the National Technology 

Transfer and Advancement Act 

(NTTAA) of 1995 requires Federal 

agencies to evaluate existing technical 

standards when developing a new 

regulation. To comply with NTTAA, 

EPA must consider and use ‘‘voluntary 

consensus standards’’ (VCS) if available 

and applicable when developing 

programs and policies unless doing so 

would be inconsistent with applicable 

law or otherwise impractical. EPA 

believes that VCS are inapplicable to 

this action. Today’s action does not 

require the public to perform activities 

conducive to the use of VCS. 

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal 

Actions To Address Environmental 

Justice in Minority Populations and 

Low-Income Populations 

Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, 

February 16, 1994), establishes federal 

executive policy on environmental 

justice. Its main provision directs 

federal agencies, to the greatest extent 

practicable and permitted by law, to 

make environmental justice part of their 

mission by identifying and addressing, 

as appropriate, disproportionately high 

and adverse human health or 

environmental effects of their programs, 

policies, and activities on minority 

populations and low-income 

populations in the United States. 

We have determined that this 

proposed rule, if finalized, will not have 

disproportionately high and adverse 

human health or environmental effects 

on minority or low-income populations 

because it increases the level of 

environmental protection for all affected 

populations without having any 

disproportionately high and adverse 

human health or environmental effects 

on any population, including any 

minority or low-income population. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Air pollution control, Environmental 

protection, Intergovernmental relations, 

Particulate matter, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur 

oxides. 

Dated: May 14, 2012. 

Jared Blumenfeld, 

Regional Administrator, Region 9. 

For the reasons stated in the 

preamble, part 52 of title 40, chapter I, 

of the Code of Federal Regulations is 

proposed to be amended as follows: 

PART 52—[AMENDED] 

1. The authority citation for Part 52 

continues to read as follows: 

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

Subpart M—Hawaii 

2. Section 52.633 is amended by 

adding paragraph (d) to read as follows: 

§ 52.633 Visibility protection. 

* * * * * 

(d) Regional Haze Plan Provisions. 

(1) Applicability. This paragraph (d) 

applies to the following electric 

generating units (EGUs) and boilers: 

Kanoelehua Hill Generating Station, Hill 

5 and Hill 6; Puna Power Plant, Boiler 

1; Shipman Power Plant, Boiler S–3 and 

Boiler S–4. 

(2) Definitions. Terms not defined 

below shall have the meaning given to 

them in the Clean Air Act or EPA’s 

regulations implementing the Clean Air 

Act. For purposes of this paragraph (d): 

SO2 means sulfur dioxide. 

Owner/operator means any person 

who owns, leases, operates, controls, or 

supervises an EGU or boiler identified 

in paragraph (d)(1). 

Unit means any of the EGUs or boilers 

identified in paragraph (d)(1). 

(3) Emissions cap. The EGUs 

identified in paragraph (d)(1) shall not 

emit or cause to be emitted SO2 in 

excess of a total of 3,550 tons per year, 

calculated as the sum of total SO2

emissions for all five units over a rolling 

12-month period. 

(4) Compliance date. Compliance 

with the emissions cap and other 

requirements of this section is required 

at all times on and after January 1, 2018. 

(5) Monitoring, recordkeeping and 

reporting requirements. 

(i) All records, including support 

information, required by this paragraph 

(5) shall be maintained for at least five 

(5) years from the date of the 

measurement, test or report. These 

records shall be in a permanent form 

suitable for inspection and made 

available to EPA, the Hawaii 

Department of Health or their 

representatives upon request. 

(ii) The owners and operators of the 

EGUs identified in paragraph (d)(1) 

shall maintain records of fuel deliveries 

identifying the delivery dates and the 

type and amount of fuel received. The 

fuel to be fired in the boilers shall be 

sampled and tested in accordance with 

the most current American Society for 

Testing and Materials (ASTM) methods. 

(iii) The owners and operators of the 

EGUs identified in paragraph (d)(1) 

shall analyze a representative sample of 

each batch of fuel received for its sulfur 

content and heat value following ASTM 

D4057. The samples shall be analyzed 

for the total sulfur content of the fuel 

using ASTM D129, or alternatively 

D1266, D1552, D2622, D4294, or D5453. 

(iv) The owners and operators of the 

EGUs identified in paragraph (d)(1) 

shall calculate on a monthly basis the 

SO2 emissions for each unit for the 

preceding month based on the sulfur 

content, heat value and total gallons of 

fuel burned fired. 

(v) The owners and operators of the 

EGUs identified in paragraph (d)(1) 

shall calculate on a monthly basis the 

total emissions for all units for the 

preceding twelve (12) months. 

(vi) The owners and operators of the 

EGUs identified in paragraph (1) shall 

notify the Hawaii Department of Health 

and EPA Region 9 of any exceedance of 

the emission cap in paragraph (d)(3) 

within thirty (30) days of such 

exceedance. 

(vii) Within sixty (60) days following 

the end of each calendar year, the 

owners and operators of the EGUs 

identified in paragraph (d)(1) shall 

report to the Hawaii Department of 

Health and EPA Region 9 the total tons 

of SO2 emitted from all units for the 

preceding calendar year by month and 

the corresponding rolling 12-month 

total emissions for all units. 

(viii) Any document (including 

reports) required to be submitted by this 

rule shall be certified as being true, 

accurate, and complete by a responsible 

official and shall be mailed to the 

following addresses: 

Clean Air Branch, Environmental 

Management Division, State of Hawaii 

Department of Health, P.O. Box 3378, 

Honolulu, HI 96801–3378, 

and 

Director of Enforcement Division, U.S. 

EPA Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, 

San Francisco, CA 94105. 

[FR Doc. 2012–12415 Filed 5–25–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2