64414 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 204 / Monday, October 22, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

(2) Persons or vessels desiring to enter 

into or passage through the zone must 

request permission from the Captain of 

the Port Mobile or a designated 

representative. They may be contacted 

on VHF-FM channels 16 or by telephone 

at 251–441–5976. 

(3) If permission is granted, all 

persons and vessels shall comply with 

the instructions of the Captain of the 

Port or designated representative. 

(d) Informational Broadcasts. The 

Captain of the Port or a designated 

representative will inform the public 

through broadcast notices to mariners of 

the enforcement period for the safety 

zone as well as any changes in the 

planned schedule. 

Dated: September 21, 2012. 

D.J. Rose, 

Captain, U.S. Coast Guard Captain of the 

Port Mobile. 

[FR Doc. 2012–25981 Filed 10–19–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 9110–04–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R02–OAR–2012–0457, FRL–9742–6] 

Approval and Promulgation of Air 

Quality Implementation Plans; United 

States Virgin Islands; Regional Haze 

Federal Implementation Plan 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is promulgating a 

Federal Implementation Plan (FIP) to 

address regional haze in the Territory of 

the United States Virgin Islands. EPA 

determined that the FIP meets the 

requirements of the Clean Air Act and 

EPA’s rules concerning reasonable 

progress towards the national goal of 

preventing any future and remedying 

any existing man-made impairment of 

visibility in mandatory Class I areas 

(also referred to as the ‘‘regional haze 

program’’). The FIP protects and 

improves visibility levels in the Virgin 

Islands Class I area, namely the Virgin 

Islands National Park on the island of 

St. John. The FIP for the Virgin Islands 

addresses reasonable progress toward 

improving visibility and evaluation of 

Best Available Retrofit Technology. 

DATES: This rule is effective on 

November 21, 2012. 

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a 

docket for this action under Docket ID 

No. EPA–R02–OAR–2012–0457. All 

documents in the docket are listed on 

the www.regulations.gov Web site. 

Although listed in the index, some 

information is not publicly available, 

e.g., CBI or other information whose 

disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Certain other material, such as 

copyrighted material, is not placed on 

the Internet and will be publicly 

available only in hard copy form. 

Publicly available docket materials are 

available either electronically through 

www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at 

the Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region II Office, Air Programs Branch, 

290 Broadway, 25th Floor, New York, 

New York 10007–1866. This Docket 

Facility is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 

p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding 

legal holidays. The Docket telephone 

number is 212–637–4249. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Robert F. Kelly, Air Planning Section, 

Air Programs Branch, EPA Region 2, 290 

Broadway, New York, New York 10007– 

1866. The telephone number is 212– 

637–4249. Mr. Kelly can also be reached 

via electronic mail at kelly.bob@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Throughout this document, wherever 

‘‘Agency,’’ ‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’ or ‘‘our’’ is used, 

we mean the EPA. In most cases in this 

document, where we use the term 

‘‘state’’ when discussing requirements 

or recommendations under the Clean 

Air Act or Agency guidance, this 

includes the Territory of the Virgin 

Islands. 

Table of Contents 

I. What action is EPA taking? 

II. What comments did EPA receive on its 

proposal and what were EPA’s 

responses? 

III. What are EPA’s conclusions? 

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. What action is EPA taking? 

EPA is promulgating a Federal 

Implementation Plan (FIP) to address 

regional haze in the U.S. Virgin Islands 

under the Clean Air Act (CAA or the 

Act) sections 301(a) and 110(c)(1). The 

FIP ensures that the Virgin Islands will 

make reasonable progress toward the 

national goal of no man-made 

contribution to visibility impairment. 

The FIP also includes Best Available 

Retrofit Technology (BART) 

determinations for sources in the Virgin 

Islands that may be subject to BART. 

For additional details on EPA’s 

analysis and the basis for the Virgin 

Islands regional haze FIP, the reader is 

referred to the June 25, 2012 proposal 

(77 FR 37842). EPA’s regional haze FIP 

for the Virgin Islands, all accompanying 

documents, and the full text of the 

public comments are included in the 

Docket (EPA–R02–OAR–2012–0457) 

and available at www.regulations.gov. 

EPA’s Authority To Promulgate a FIP 

The Act requires each state to develop 

plans to meet various air quality 

requirements, including protection of 

visibility. (CAA sections 110(a), 169A, 

and 169B). The plans developed by a 

state or territory are referred to as State 

Implementation Plans or SIPs. A state 

must submit its SIPs and SIP revisions 

to EPA for approval. Once approved, a 

SIP is federally enforceable, that is it is 

enforceable by EPA and citizens under 

the Act. If a state fails to make a 

required SIP submittal or if we find that 

a state’s required submittal is 

incomplete or unapprovable, then EPA 

must promulgate a FIP to fill this 

regulatory gap. (CAA section 110(c)(1)). 

EPA made a finding of failure to 

submit on January 15, 2009 (74 FR 

2392), determining that the U.S. Virgin 

Islands failed to submit a SIP that 

addressed any of the regional haze SIP 

requirements of 40 CFR 51.308. Under 

section 110(c) of the Act, whenever EPA 

finds that a state has failed to make a 

required submission, the Agency is 

required to promulgate a FIP. 

Specifically, section 110(c) provides: 

• The Administrator shall promulgate 

a Federal implementation plan at any 

time within 2 years after the 

Administrator— 

Æ 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 

Æ 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 EPA determined that 

the Virgin Islands failed to submit a 

regional haze SIP, the Agency is 

promulgating a regional haze FIP at 40 

CFR 52.2781(d). The Virgin Islands 

Department of Planning and Natural 

Resources has indicated that the 

Government of the Virgin Islands agrees 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with 
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 204 / Monday, October 22, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 64415 

with EPA’s moving forward to prepare 

this FIP. 

If the Virgin Islands at any time 

decide to submit a SIP revision to 

incorporate provisions that would be 

approvable as a SIP revision for a 

regional haze plan, EPA would welcome 

that submittal. If EPA were to approve 

such a SIP revision, after public notice 

and comment, the SIP provisions would 

replace EPA’s FIP. 

II. What comments did EPA receive on 

its proposal and what were EPA’s 

responses? 

EPA received comments from the 

National Park Service (NPS), which 

serves as the Federal Land Manager 

(FLM) for the Virgin Islands National 

Park, and from HOVENSA, L.L.C. 

(HOVENSA). EPA also received one 

comment from a private citizen in 

support of EPA’s proposal. A summary 

of the comments and EPA’s responses 

are provided below. 

Comment: A private citizen supported 

EPA’s actions to reduce regional haze in 

the area, including the restriction of 

sulfur in ferry and cruise-ship fuel, the 

federal motor vehicle control program, 

and emissions reductions from 

HOVENSA, including the use of Best 

Available Retrofit Technology (BART). 

The NPS also supported EPA’s 

determination that expected emissions 

reductions from marine vessels under 

the North American Emissions Control 

Area and the HOVENSA Consent Decree 

are appropriate to include in the long 

term strategy for regional haze. 

Response: EPA acknowledges the 

support and is including these 

emissions reductions as part of the FIP. 

Comment: NPS supported EPA’s 

determination that sources outside the 

island of St. John are major contributors 

to visibility impairment at the Virgin 

Islands National Park. 

Response: EPA acknowledges the 

support for the visibility analysis. 

Comment: NPS commented that it 

expected EPA’s proposal to include a 

more rigorous technical analysis of local 

anthropogenic contributions to regional 

haze in the Virgin Islands. 

Response: EPA disagrees with the 

NPS’s characterization of the analysis 

conducted for the FIP. We identified 

potential contributors to visibility 

impairment from the IMPROVE 

monitoring data, as well as other 

suggestions from the FLM, local 

citizens, and the Virgin Islands 

government. In addition to analyzing 

the IMPROVE data, we investigated 

possible sources of coarse particles that 

were hard to identify due to the 

overwhelming impact of coarse particles 

from Saharan dust. EPA commissioned 

a thorough inventory of all source 

categories on St. John. EPA also used 

inventories from new source review 

applications to identify the larger point 

sources on St. Thomas and St. Croix that 

may impact the Class I area on St. John. 

We investigated fuel usage, electric 

generation and open burning 

information for potential sources on 

Tortola, the nearest island of the British 

Virgin Islands. Finally, we used back 

trajectory analyses and dispersion 

modeling to determine whether 

emissions from a major source in Puerto 

Rico could have an impact on visibility 

in St. John. 

Comment: NPS commented that 

coarse mass could be due to transport or 

local sources, natural and 

anthropogenic, but EPA made little 

effort to distinguish source 

contributions. 

Response: EPA disagrees. The FIP 

includes EPA’s numerous efforts to 

address local anthropogenic sources of 

coarse mass. Saharan dust is mostly in 

the coarse mass (2.5 microns to 10 

microns) range of particles. Coarse mass 

particles can also be produced by 

human sources, such as quarrying 

operations, wind-blown dirt from 

unpaved roads, and dirt on paved and 

unpaved roads re-entrained by vehicles. 

Ordinarily, coarse particles do not travel 

the long distances that fine particles 

travel because of their larger size and 

larger mass and because they tend to be 

emitted near the ground. One exception 

to this rule is the coarse dust from the 

Sahara Desert, which is lofted 

thousands of feet into the atmosphere by 

strong trade winds. This dust is carried 

by the trade winds for long distances, 

across the Atlantic Ocean, remaining 

aloft and mixing down into the surface 

air over the Caribbean islands. 

(Prospero, 1999. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 

USA. 96:3396–3404.) 

EPA conducted an effort to find 

sources of particle emissions on St. John 

(as well as other pollutants that 

contribute to reduced visibility), 

knowing that coarse particle emissions 

on St. John could be contributing to the 

obstruction of visibility in the Virgin 

Islands National Park, and because 

coarse particles from ground-level 

sources on other islands are not likely 

to be transported to St. John. EPA also 

developed an emission inventory for St. 

John which identified emissions from 

construction activities, re-entrained dirt 

from traffic, and a concrete mixing 

facility on St. John, all of which were 

included in the modeling to determine 

which human sources contribute the 

most to reducing visibility in the Virgin 

Islands National Park. EPA discussed 

the results of the modeling in the June 

25, 2012 proposal (77 FR 37842). Air 

modeling ranks construction and road 

dust as the two anthropogenic source 

categories with the highest impact on 

visibility at the IMPROVE monitor on 

St. John. 

Comment: NPS believes there are 

episodes of elevated sulfate that could 

be due to industry or marine traffic or 

due to atmospheric transport of 

emissions from other islands or the U.S. 

mainland. NPS also suggested that 

episodes of elevated organic carbon are 

due to vegetative burning. 

Response: In the June 25, 2012 

proposal, EPA noted that local sulfur 

dioxide emissions are not the only 

source of sulfate on St. John. Sulfates 

likely come from other islands outside 

the U.S. Virgin Islands, and EPA 

included sources from the British Virgin 

Islands and Puerto Rico in the modeling 

analysis. Modeling predicts that sulfate 

averages from five to eleven percent of 

the anthropogenic contribution to 

visibility obstruction and can be as high 

as twenty-five percent. However, 

emissions from sources in the Caribbean 

upwind of the Virgin Islands cannot be 

reduced by actions taken by EPA or the 

U.S. Virgin Islands government. 

Based on trajectory analyses, 

emissions from sources in North 

America may be transported to the 

Virgin Islands on rare occasions. 

However, there are many Class I areas 

in the United States that are closer to 

these sources than the Virgin Islands. 

Mainland sources were not considered 

in the modeling for the Virgin Islands 

FIP because state regional haze SIPs (or 

FIPs) will inevitable mandate stronger 

controls based on the sources’ larger 

impacts on mainland Class I areas. 

As for organic carbon, the IMPROVE 

data show a few periods of time when 

carbon is a major component 

responsible for reducing visibility. Most 

of these events occur after major 

windstorms or hurricanes when fallen 

trees and other vegetation are burned 

due to the lack of space on the island 

to landfill the debris. 

In summary, EPA did in fact include 

the various source categories suggested 

by the NPS comment in our analysis 

and in the modeling conducted in 

support of the FIP. 

Comment: NPS commented that the 

back trajectory analysis identified 

possible source areas for each pollutant 

species, but EPA’s analysis was not 

comprehensive. NPS believes sources 

on nearby islands as well as long range 

transport are potential contributors to 

haze at St. John. 

Response: Back trajectory analysis for 

the top four days with the largest impact 

for each of the measured species 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with 
64416 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 204 / Monday, October 22, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

provides the best opportunity to find if 

consistent locations (and the sources 

located there) are upwind of St. John on 

the days when each species has the 

largest impact on visibility. As we 

expected, most days have trajectories 

from the east, the predominant direction 

of the wind in the tropics trade wind 

regime, as seen in the wind roses in the 

FIP. Days where a source has high 

contributions toward reducing visibility 

should show up as the source region in 

the trajectory analysis. For example, 

days when coarse particulates were 

highest had trajectories that began in or 

near the Sahara Desert. Days when 

coarse particulates were lower and 

another species was large, on the other 

hand, mostly had trajectories from other 

locations. Thus, EPA determined that 

looking at roughly 30 days when 

different species dominated would 

reveal the sources of the various species 

that impact visibility on St. John. 

However, there was no consistent 

source region or regions in the U.S. 

Virgin Islands for these high impact 

days for products of combustion, like 

sulfates and nitrates. While some days’ 

trajectories passed over St. Thomas and 

St. Croix, showing that sources there 

can be responsible for emissions that 

interfere with visibility, most of the 

trajectories on days with high sulfate 

and nitrate concentrations did not pass 

over St. Thomas or St. Croix. Many 

trajectories passed over other islands 

where EPA does not have jurisdiction to 

require emission controls. EPA’s 

modeling showed a similar pattern of 

combustion sources impacting St. John 

on a limited (but still significant) 

number of days. The impacts were 

frequent enough to warrant EPA to 

evaluate sources such as HOVENSA and 

other point sources in St. Thomas and 

St. Croix to determine if reasonable 

controls were available to improve 

visibility. 

In response to the concerns of the 

Virgin Islands Government that sources 

upwind might affect St. John, EPA 

considered combustion emissions from 

Puerto Rico and fuel oil combustion and 

agricultural burning on Tortola in its 

modeling. 

Also, a few trajectories show that 

some days with worse visibility may 

result from sulfates, nitrates, and carbon 

that originate in North America. It 

should be noted that significant 

reductions have occurred in sulfate, 

nitrate and carbon emissions from 

sources in the United States due to acid 

rain control programs, ozone and 

particulate matter state implementation 

plans and regional haze plans. Future 

emission reductions that will result 

from these programs are likely to further 

reduce visibility impacts from North 

America. 

Comment: NPS commented that it is 

unclear why EPA did not include 

emissions from St. Thomas and St. 

Croix and recommends EPA develop a 

complete inventory for the Virgin 

Islands. NPS commented that EPA’s 

proposal indicated that additional point 

sources were considered, but the 

emissions were not presented. 

Response: EPA disagrees that 

emissions from St. Thomas and St. 

Croix were not included and disagrees 

that information on other point sources 

was not presented. This information 

was only summarized in the June 25, 

2012 proposal. Complete information 

for point sources on St. Thomas, St. 

Croix, and St. John is in the modeling 

analysis performed for EPA. A detailed 

emission inventory for St. John is in the 

supporting documentation contained in 

the Docket for the proposal (See: 

DEVELOPMENT OF 2002 REGIONAL 

HAZE AREA, POINT, NONROAD 

MOBILE, AND ONROAD MOBILE 

SOURCE EMISSION INVENTORIES 

FOR ST. JOHN, VIRGIN ISLANDS in the 

Appendices.) The point source 

inventories were developed in order to 

determine compliance with EPA’s 

ambient air quality standards for sulfur 

dioxide, nitrogen dioxide and 

particulate matter. Emissions of these 

pollutants are important in assessing 

human-made obstruction to visibility. 

The emissions from the significant 

sources in these inventories are more 

likely to be transported across the sea to 

St. John than emissions from other area 

or mobile emission source categories 

that are emitted near the ground. EPA 

also used modeling to evaluate the 

potential impact of sources in Puerto 

Rico on St. John. The results showed 

that a major source on Puerto Rico 

would not impact visibility on St. John, 

so emissions from Puerto Rico were not 

investigated further for inclusion in the 

FIP. 

As stated in the June 25, 2012 

proposal, rather than use a full 

statewide inventory to judge reasonable 

progress, we focused on the inventory 

for the island of St. John, where the 

Class I area is located, and other major 

point sources located in the Virgin 

Islands. Our analysis indicates that most 

emissions outside of St. John, other than 

major point sources, do not significantly 

impair visibility at the Virgin Islands 

National Park due to the prevailing 

winds. Prevailing winds at St. John are 

from the east, as shown in the wind 

roses contained in the FIP. St. Thomas 

and St. Croix are located west and 

south, respectively, of St. John. 

Therefore, these trade winds tend to 

transport pollution from St. Thomas and 

St. Croix away from the Class I area. In 

addition, modeling performed to 

estimate the visibility impact of 

currently operating individual sources 

of pollution indicates that, with the 

exception of HOVENSA, even very large 

sources in the Virgin Islands have 

relatively small visibility impacts on 

Virgin Islands National Park. 

Comment: NPS commented that EPA 

should add marine traffic between 

neighboring islands to the inventory. 

Response: The impact of marine 

traffic at St. John was included in the 

inventory. EPA reasonably chose not to 

include emissions from marine traffic 

between other neighboring islands, 

because modeling did not predict a large 

impact of the ship emissions on St. 

John. 

Comment: NPS commented that EPA 

should have used 2009 MM5 

meteorological model outputs in its 

modeling. HOVENSA also commented 

that the use of a small set of overwater 

buoy data, combined with upper air 

sounding data from San Juan, Puerto 

Rico and the airport station at St. 

Thomas, was insufficient to satisfy 

EPA’s own recommendations to use 

available prognostic data in 

combination with observational data. 

Response: EPA chose to use four years 

of local meteorological data because 

only a single year of data was available 

for MM5. While using a gridded, 

prognostic data model to simulate 

meteorological conditions is likely to 

produce a more accurate wind field in 

most circumstances, this would have 

been difficult with just a single year of 

MM5 data. Using four years of data from 

local weather sites, on the other hand, 

provided EPA with a robust calculation 

of impacts from anthropogenic 

emissions in the Virgin Islands. 

Moreover, the use of interpolated 

weather data from a few sites is more 

likely to be accurate in the Virgin 

Islands than it would in the continental 

United States because there is less 

terrain across the modeling domain to 

disrupt wind flow and wind direction 

and speed is more consistent in the 

tropics. 

Comment: NPS commented that EPA 

should not use the 98th percentile 

impact averaged over four years as a 

threshold. 

Response: EPA agrees and modified 

the FIP to highlight the highest of the 

98th percentile impacts for each source 

or source category. As a result of this 

change, the impact EPA will use for 

evaluating potential control strategies 

and for comparing sources’ impacts will 

be higher than when EPA used a fouryear average in the proposal. 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with 
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 204 / Monday, October 22, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 64417 

In our proposal, we evaluated the 

impacts of the sources based on the 

average of the 98th percentile visibility 

impacts. Our guidance recommends 

using the highest 98th percentile value, 

not the average of the 98th percentile 

values. Both of these values are listed in 

the following table. Nonetheless, using 

the highest of the 98th percentile 

impacts did not change any of our 

analyses for potential controls on these 

sources or source categories. 

TABLE 1—IMPACT OF ANTHROPOGENIC SOURCES THAT CONTRIBUTE TO REGIONAL HAZE IN THE VIRGIN ISLANDS, BASED

ON FOUR YEARS OF MODELING FROM 2007 TO 2010 

[In deciviews (dv)] 

Source or source category 

Highest of four years’ 

98th 

percentile impact 

Average of four years’ 

98th 

percentile impact 

All Sources (w/o FIP) ..................................................................................................................... 10.07 dv* ..................... 8.15 dv*. 

All Sources after FIP reductions .................................................................................................... 9.67 .............................

(0.40 reduction) ...........

7.79 

(0.36 reduction). 

St. John Construction (total of all activities) .................................................................................. 5.72 dv ........................ 4.36 dv. 

HOVENSA—all units operating ..................................................................................................... 3.34 ............................. 2.49 

St. John Road Dust ....................................................................................................................... 2.71 ............................. 2.19 

St. Croix Other (w/o WAPA, HOVENSA) ...................................................................................... 1.13 ............................. 0.82 

St. John Point Sources—generators ............................................................................................. 1.05 ............................. 0.60 

St. Thomas—all sources (inc. WAPA) ........................................................................................... 0.62 ............................. 0.38 

St. John Open Burning .................................................................................................................. 0.58 ............................. 0.42 

St. Croix WAPA—all units ............................................................................................................. 0.48 ............................. 0.35 

BVI Oil Combustion ....................................................................................................................... 0.46** .......................... ** 

St. John Non-road Combustion Emissions .................................................................................... 0.26 ............................. 0.22 

St. John Marine .............................................................................................................................. 0.25 ............................. 0.12 

Estimated BVI Open Burning Source ............................................................................................ 0.16** .......................... ** 

St. John On-road Vehicle Tailpipe Emissions ............................................................................... 0.12 ............................. 0.11 

St. John Residential Hot Water Heating ........................................................................................ 0.01 ............................. 0.01 

Sample Puerto Rico Power Plant .................................................................................................. 0.00** .......................... ** 

Other Source Categories (These are included in the sources or source categories listed 

above): 

HOVENSA BART eligible stacks only .................................................................................... 2.60 dv ........................ 1.91 dv 

St. Thomas WAPA—all units .................................................................................................. 0.21 ............................. 0.12 

St. Thomas WAPA BART eligible stacks only ....................................................................... 0.09 ............................. 0.06 

St. Croix WAPA BART eligible stacks only ............................................................................ 0.12 ............................. 0.09 

St. John Marine with reductions ............................................................................................. 0.04 .............................

(0.21 reduction) ...........

0.02 

(0.10 reduction). 

* Individual impacts from each source will not add up to the total for ‘‘All Sources’’, since the impacts from each source may be on different 

days and times than the impact for ‘‘All Sources’’ together. 

** Modeling from 2009 only. 

BVI refers to the island of Tortola in the British Virgin Islands. 

WAPA refers to the Virgin Islands Water and Power Authority. 

EPA has revised Table 8 of the June 

25, 2012 proposal to include the highest 

of the 98th percentile impacts for EPA’s 

BART analysis: 

REVISION TO TABLE 8—INDIVIDUAL BART-ELIGIBLE SOURCE VISIBILITY IMPACTS ON VIRGIN ISLANDS CLASS I AREA

Facility and location Class I area and locations of modeling receptor 

Maximum 4-year 

98th percentile 

visibility impact 

(deciviews) 

Subject to 

BART? 

VI WAPA .................................................................... St. John ..................................................................... 0.09 No. 

St. Thomas ................................................................. Hassel Island, St. Thomas ........................................ 0.09 

VI WAPA .................................................................... St. John ..................................................................... 0.12 No. 

St. Croix ..................................................................... Hassel Island, St. Thomas ........................................ 0.13 

HOVENSA .................................................................. St. John ..................................................................... 2.60 Yes. 

St. Croix ..................................................................... Hassel Island, St. Thomas ........................................ 3.12 

The changes to the impacts for VI 

WAPA St. Thomas and VI WAPA St. 

Croix are not high enough to cause or 

contribute to a significant impact on 

visibility in the Virgin Islands National 

Park. Thus, neither source is eligible for 

further analysis for BART controls. 

Comment: NPS commented that EPA 

should use the first high results to 

determine impact of sources and do a 

comparison to the twenty percent best 

days. 

Response: EPA used four years of 

modeling data and using the first high 

over four years’ worth of days would be 

overly conservative. A comparison to 

the twenty percent best visibility days is 

often not helpful because many sources 

did not have any impact on the twenty 

percent best visibility days. (For more 

information, see the tables from the 

modeling report. The number of days 

when the source had an impact is noted 

in parentheses.) 

Furthermore, EPA’s BART Guidelines 

call for the use of the 98th percentile 

(essentially the 8th highest day) rather 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with 
64418 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 204 / Monday, October 22, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

than the maximum modeled daily 

impact. The BART Guidelines further 

state that while ‘‘the use of the 98th 

percentile of modeled visibility values 

would appear to exclude roughly 7 days 

per year from consideration, in our 

judgment, this approach will effectively 

capture the sources that contribute to 

visibility impairment in a Class I area, 

while minimizing the likelihood that 

the highest modeled visibility impacts 

might be caused by unusual 

meteorology or conservative 

assumptions in the model.’’ See 70 FR 

39104, 39121 (July 6, 2005). 

Comment: NPS commented that EPA 

should have used the latest CALPOST 

processor. 

Response: The processor used by EPA 

is the one in the Federal Land Managers’ 

Air Quality Related Values Work Group 

(FLAG) guidance that was in effect 

when EPA began the modeling in 2010. 

Comment: The NPS agrees with EPA 

that as long as HOVENSA retains its air 

quality permits, the Consent Decree 

should remain in place. NPS 

commented that if the refinery is to 

restart, an emissions control analysis 

should be conducted prior to restart. 

Response: EPA appreciates the FLM’s 

agreement that the HOVENSA Consent 

Decree should remain in place and that 

an analysis of reasonable control 

measures should be conducted when 

HOVENSA notifies EPA that they will 

resume refinery operations. In response 

to comments submitted to EPA by 

HOVENSA, we are modifying the 

HOVENSA notification requirement to 

clarify that upon notification to EPA 

that HOVENSA will restart refinery 

operations, HOVENSA will provide 

emission unit information to EPA in 

order for EPA to assess whether 

additional control measures are 

warranted to meet the regional haze 

requirements. 

Comment: NPS commented that it is 

difficult to conclude that there will be 

a 0.16 deciview improvement in 

visibility due to the expected emissions 

reductions from marine sources and 

HOVENSA. EPA should determine the 

reason for the increasing trends in 

sulfate’s contribution to visibility 

impairment. 

Response: The emission reductions 

leading to a 0.16 deciview improvement 

over the worst twenty percent visibility 

days are based on emission control 

strategies that have been adopted and 

will be implemented, so EPA is 

confident that these emission reductions 

will lead to improvements in visibility, 

especially on the days with the largest 

degradation due to anthropogenic 

sources. On the 98th percentile days, 

the improvement is as large as 0.53 

deciviews. 

EPA disagrees that an analysis of the 

increasing trends in sulfate’s 

contribution to visibility impairment is 

required to be part of the FIP. 

Concentrations vary from year to year 

and some of the variability may be due 

to imprecision in the sampling and 

analysis of the particles that obstruct 

visibility. EPA will evaluate changes in 

sulfate, and all other contributing 

factors to visibility impairment, as part 

of the five-year review. 

Comment: The FLMs want EPA to 

more substantively involve them in 

future discussions for regional haze in 

the Virgin Islands. 

Response: EPA understands that it is 

important to increase FLM involvement 

in technical issues related to regional 

haze in the Virgin Islands, especially via 

informal sharing of new information 

and improvements in the FIP. 

Comment: HOVENSA stated that 

EPA’s regional haze rules indicate that 

the states should consider whether it is 

reasonable to aim for attainment of the 

national goal, and that the 2064 target 

date and the resulting glidepath are not 

in any way binding. 

Response: EPA acknowledges that the 

2064 target date and the glidepath for 

meeting the goal are not directly 

enforceable. In our June 25, 2012 

proposal, we indicated in Table 6 that 

while a 1.48 deciview improvement is 

needed to reach the uniform rate of 

progress goal for 2018, EPA’s proposed 

FIP is only projecting a 2018 

improvement of 0.16 deciviews (the 

Reasonable Progress Goal). 

Comment: HOVENSA commented 

that EPA has no rational basis for 

applying the Regional Haze Rule (RHR) 

to the Virgin Islands because there are 

no U.S. possessions that can impact 

visibility in the Virgin Islands. EPA’s 

RHR declares that regional haze is from 

sources over a wide geographic area. 

Response: EPA disagrees. The 

requirement to submit a regional haze 

SIP applies to all 50 states, the District 

of Columbia and the Virgin Islands. The 

RHR (64 FR 35714, July 1, 1999) 

specifically states that ‘‘Hawaii, Alaska, 

and the Virgin Islands would be subject 

to the regional haze provisions because 

of the potential for emissions from 

sources within their borders to 

contribute to regional haze impairment 

in Class I areas also located within their 

own jurisdiction’’ (64 FR 35720). 

Therefore, sources in the Virgin 

Islands that impact the Virgin Islands 

National Park are not exempted from the 

Clean Air Act’s regional haze 

requirements to protect visibility in 

Class I areas. 

Comment: HOVENSA objected to 

EPA’s proposal for the facility to 

provide a reasonable control measures 

study, consistent with the RHR, should 

HOVENSA resume operation of the 

refinery process units. HOVENSA asked 

EPA to remove this requirement from 

the final FIP. 

Response: EPA proposed the 

requirement for HOVENSA to submit an 

analysis of reasonable control measures 

in the event that HOVENSA resumes 

operation of any refinery process units 

as an alternative to requiring such an 

analysis at this time. While refinery 

operations are currently idled, 

HOVENSA has retained its air permits 

and has not surrendered them to EPA. 

Therefore, EPA cannot rely on the idling 

of HOVENSA’s refinery operations as an 

enforceable emission reduction for 

meeting the regional haze requirements. 

As we stated in our June 25, 2012 

proposal (77 FR 37856), while there is 

uncertainty at this time regarding future 

operations at HOVENSA, the Consent 

Decree, which is enforceable by EPA, 

contains emission reductions and 

emission limitation requirements. These 

Consent Decree requirements allow us 

to project that, should HOVENSA 

resume operating as a refinery, its 

permitted emissions of sulfur dioxide 

will be lower than they were prior to 

entry of the Consent Decree. 

Because the facility is in an idled state 

and HOVENSA has not provided any 

possible future refinery operating 

scenarios, EPA determined that it was 

not practical to require HOVENSA to 

perform an analysis of reasonable 

control measures at this time. In 

addition, EPA believed that should 

refinery operation resume, HOVENSA 

may decide to operate certain emission 

units and pollution control equipment 

but not others, compared to emission 

units that operated before the refinery 

operations were idled. Nevertheless, in 

response to HOVENSA’s comments, 

EPA agrees that resuming operations at 

HOVENSA does not need to wait for 

HOVENSA to first provide an analysis 

of reasonable control measures. So, we 

are modifying the notification 

requirement to clarify that upon 

notification to EPA that HOVENSA will 

restart refinery operations, HOVENSA 

will provide emission unit information 

to EPA in order for EPA to assess if 

additional control measures are 

warranted to meet the regional haze 

requirements. 

Comment: HOVENSA stated that 

EPA’s FIP should reflect the 

determination that HOVENSA’s 

compliance with the terms of the 

Consent Decree satisfies its regional 

haze obligations during the first 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with 
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 204 / Monday, October 22, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 64419 

planning period of the program and that 

any changes to the refinery’s 

compliance obligations would be 

evaluated as part of the five year review. 

Response: HOVENSA’s comment 

specifically says that HOVENSA’s 

compliance with the terms of the 

Consent Decree satisfies its regional 

haze obligations. In fact, the HOVENSA 

Consent Decree is not an analysis of 

reasonable control measures as required 

for regional haze. The Consent Decree 

was developed for entirely different 

reasons. A consent decree is a 

negotiated agreement, and was not 

evaluated for meeting the requirements 

for a reasonable control measure 

analysis required for regional haze. EPA 

decided it was not practical for 

HOVENSA to perform an analysis of 

reasonable control measures while its 

refining process is idled. EPA believes 

the information necessary to complete 

such an analysis will be more complete 

when HOVENSA’s future operational 

plans are known. The Consent Decree is 

a starting point for an analysis of 

reasonable control measures until more 

information is available. 

As for evaluating any changes to the 

refinery’s compliance obligations during 

the five year review, EPA believes that 

determining what controls are 

reasonable when those controls would 

be needed, that is, when emission units 

are operating, would better serve the 

purpose of meeting the regional haze 

plan for the Virgin Islands. 

Comment: HOVENSA states that it 

would be unreasonable to impose the 

costs of controls on its facility when 

there will be little or no improvement in 

visibility on St. John. 

Response: Modeling the controls 

required under the Consent Decree 

shows an improvement of 0.13 

deciviews, compared to HOVENSA’s 

total impact of 1.60 deciviews in 

visibility on St. John for the twenty 

percent worst visibility days. If the 

refining process restarts, reasonable 

controls may add to this improvement 

because HOVENSA has a total impact of 

3.34 deciviews on the highest 98th 

percentile day. 

Comment: HOVENSA stated that 

EPA’s requirement for HOVENSA to 

perform an analysis of reasonable 

controls on its emissions before 

restarting its refining facility would 

cause uncertainty and delays in any 

restart process because EPA is requiring 

installation of controls no later than five 

years after the effective date of the 

revised FIP. 

Response: As stated earlier, in 

response to HOVENSA’s comments, we 

are modifying the HOVENSA 

notification requirement to clarify that 

upon notification to EPA that 

HOVENSA will restart refinery 

operations, HOVENSA will provide 

emission unit information to EPA in 

order for EPA to determine if additional 

control measures are warranted. 

However, HOVENSA’s comments do not 

accurately reflect the timing for 

installation of controls as a result of the 

notification requirement. If and when 

HOVENSA notifies EPA that it plans to 

resume operation of the refinery process 

units, EPA will assess whether 

additional control measures are 

warranted to meet the regional haze 

requirements. Should EPA determine 

that additional emissions controls are 

necessary, HOVENSA will have 

considerable time to prepare for their 

installation while EPA undertakes 

notice-and-comment rulemaking to 

revise the FIP. Once the rulemaking is 

complete, HOVENSA will then have up 

to five years from the effective date of 

the revised FIP, if there is one, to install 

controls. In other words, EPA’s 

requirement to install controls as 

expeditiously as practicable but no later 

than five years after the effective date of 

the revised FIP is referring to this 

‘‘second,’’ or revised FIP, not the FIP 

being promulgated in this action. While 

EPA agrees that the rulemaking process 

presents uncertainty as to what controls 

will ultimately be determined to be 

reasonable, it is likely that some of these 

controls may already be installed upon 

startup of HOVENSA’s refinery 

operations due to other Clean Air Act 

requirements. If not, HOVENSA will 

have up to five years from the effective 

date of the revised FIP to install them. 

EPA notes that HOVENSA’s comment 

that EPA’s proposed reasonable 

measures analysis requirement will 

present uncertainty and delay to any 

reactivation process contradicts 

HOVENSA’s other comment, requesting 

EPA to rely on the five-year review 

process for determining whether to 

change HOVENSA’s compliance 

obligations. Relying on the five-year 

review would present its own 

uncertainties and possible delays. 

Comment: HOVENSA commented 

that by using potential emissions, rather 

than actual emissions, for the modeling 

and BART analysis, EPA has greatly 

overstated HOVENSA’s impacts on the 

Class I area in St. John. 

Response: HOVENSA cites EPA 

guidance as recommending using the 

highest typical emissions from a BARTeligible source for BART modeling. EPA 

chose to use potential to emit rather 

than historical emissions, resulting in a 

more conservative approach than using 

HOVENSA’s historical emissions. 

HOVENSA has been operating at low 

capacity in recent years [Letter from 

HOVENSA to Mr. Steve Riva, EPA 

Region 2, April 21, 2011], so historical 

emissions are not representative of the 

impact that HOVENSA would have on 

visibility at the Class I area when 

operating near or at full capacity. Thus, 

EPA is using the emissions that the 

facility is allowed to emit in its 

evaluation of impacts on visibility 

obscuration in the Class I area. 

Comment: HOVENSA commented 

that EPA’s back trajectory modeling for 

the worst days of visibility impairment 

on St. John shows that sources on St. 

Croix did not contribute to any of the 

worst days of visibility impairment. 

Response: EPA does not agree with 

HOVENSA’s interpretation of the 

trajectory analysis. One of the four days 

when sulfates have their highest 

contributions to visibility impairment 

on St. John, trajectories passed very near 

St. Croix, where the HOVENSA refinery 

is located. In addition, modeling 

predicts that HOVENSA has a 

significant impact on visibility in the 

Virgin Islands National Park on St. John, 

so if reasonable controls on emissions 

are available from HOVENSA, they will 

reduce this significant impact on the 

view in the Park. 

Comment: HOVENSA commented 

that EPA’s assertion that HOVENSA’s 

emissions affect visibility on St. John 

stands in sharp contrast to EPA’s own 

conclusion that coarse particles are the 

primary source of visibility impairment 

on St. John and that most of the coarse 

particles come from wind-blown sea salt 

and Saharan dust. 

Response: Even though coarse 

particles from Saharan dust may be the 

largest contributor to visibility 

impairment on St. John, that does not 

mean that HOVENSA, or other human 

sources of emissions do not affect 

visibility on St. John as well. In the 

trajectory analysis, one of the four 

highest days of sulfate impairment does 

occur when the trajectory passes near 

St. Croix. Also, the modeling analysis 

shows that HOVENSA is likely to have 

an impact on visibility on St. John. 

Because winds that bring Saharan dust 

come from the east and winds that bring 

emissions from St. Croix are from the 

south, it is likely that these two 

visibility-impairing sources impact St. 

John at different times. Thus, emissions 

from HOVENSA may be noticeable on 

St. John as sulfate haze. 

Comment: HOVENSA commented 

that because natural background 

visibility values do not include 

important natural sources, the natural 

background visibility is biased low and 

the relative CALPUFF modeled source 

impacts are thereby overestimated. 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with 
64420 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 204 / Monday, October 22, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

Response: EPA disagrees that not 

including natural sources, like Saharan 

dust, in the natural background values 

means that CALPUFF’s impacts are 

overestimated. CALPUFF’s impacts are 

independent of, and not affected by, the 

estimates of natural background. When 

we compare the modeled sulfates and 

nitrates with the observed sulfates and 

nitrates from the IMPROVE site data, the 

modeled sulfates and nitrates are less 

than the observed. The comparison 

indicated that if CALPUFF is not 

estimating the impacts of anthropogenic 

sources correctly, it is likely to be 

underestimating the anthropogenic 

source impact. Thus, HOVENSA’s 

impact may be higher than modeled by 

CALPUFF. 

Comment: HOVENSA commented 

that emission reductions from its facility 

are not going to have a discernible effect 

on visibility on St. John because EPA’s 

proposal indicated that the effect of 

sulfate controls on industrial sources is 

overwhelmed by the impact of natural 

sulfate and Saharan dust. 

Response: While the effect of natural 

emissions is very large in the Virgin 

Islands, the Clean Air Act requires EPA 

to reduce the effect of anthropogenic 

sources using measures that EPA 

determines are reasonable. Thus, even 

though human-caused emissions may be 

low compared to the impact of Saharan 

dust, they are still significant (up to 7.38 

deciviews on the twenty percent worst 

days, with as much as 1.60 deciviews 

from HOVENSA’s impact). Reducing 

anthropogenic emissions will still 

improve visibility in the Virgin Islands 

National Park, as sulfates and nitrates, 

which are mostly from combustion 

sources, cause significant reductions in 

visibility according to the IMPROVE 

data. 

Comment: HOVENSA notes that 

EPA’s guidance emphasizes using a 

blended prognostic meteorological 

model, like MM5, instead of 

observational data using CALMET. EPA 

should not base its recommended 

controls on such a simplistic 

meteorological data set. 

Response: See EPA’s response to the 

NPS’s comment on this issue above. In 

addition, if using MM5 to drive the 

meteorology in the CALPUFF model 

gave better performance, remodeling 

would be more likely to increase 

impacts from anthropogenic sources, 

like HOVENSA. 

III. What are EPA’s conclusions? 

EPA is promulgating a Federal 

Implementation Plan for Regional Haze 

for the Territory of the United States 

Virgin Islands. This FIP addresses 

progress toward reducing regional haze 

for the first implementation period 

ending in 2018. The FIP includes 

emission reductions to begin the 

reasonable progress needed to achieve 

the overall objective of no man-made 

interference with visibility by 2064. The 

FIP relies on emission reductions from 

existing emissions controls and 

programs currently in effect and 

requires HOVENSA to notify EPA in the 

event it resumes operation of the 

refinery process units and to provide 

emission unit information to EPA. EPA 

is taking this action pursuant to CAA 

sections 110(c)(1), 301(a), 169A and 

169B. EPA solicited public comments 

on the issues discussed in this 

document and considered these 

comments before taking final action. 

EPA is promulgating 40 CFR 52.2781(d) 

‘‘Regional Haze Plan for the Virgin 

Islands National Park.’’ 

VI. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory 

Planning and Review and Executive 

Order 13563: Improving Regulation and 

Regulatory Review 

This action will promulgate 

requirements for one facility and is 

therefore not a rule of general 

applicability. This type of action is 

exempt from review under Executive 

Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 

1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 

21, 2011). 

B. Paperwork Reduction Act 

This action does not impose an 

information collection burden under the 

provisions of the Paperwork Reduction 

Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. Burden is 

defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b). Because this 

FIP only applies to one facility, the 

Paperwork Reduction Act does not 

apply. 

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 rule on small entities, small 

entity is defined as: (1) A small business 

as defined by the Small Business 

Administration’s (SBA’s) 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 action on small entities, 

I certify that this action will not have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. 

The net result of this FIP action is that 

EPA is promulgating emission controls 

on selected units at only one facility. 

The facility in question is a large 

petroleum refinery that is not owned by 

a small entity, and therefore is not a 

small entity. 

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

(UMRA) 

This rule does not contain a Federal 

mandate that may result in expenditures 

of $100 million or more for State, local, 

and tribal governments, in the aggregate, 

or the private sector in any one year. It 

is a rule of particular applicability that 

affects only one facility in the United 

States Virgin Islands. 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. This 

rule only applies to one facility in the 

United States Virgin Islands. 

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism 

This action does not have federalism 

implications. It 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. This action 

addresses the United States Virgin 

Islands not meeting its obligation to 

adopt a SIP that meets the regional haze 

requirements under the CAA. Thus, 

Executive Order 13132 does not apply 

to this action. Although section 6 of 

Executive Order 13132 does not apply 

to this action, EPA did consult with the 

Virgin Islands government in 

developing this action. 

F. Executive Order 13175 

This action does not have tribal 

implications, as specified in Executive 

Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 

2000), because the action EPA is taking 

neither imposes substantial direct 

compliance costs on tribal governments, 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with 
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 204 / Monday, October 22, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 64421 

nor preempts tribal law. It will not have 

substantial direct effects on tribal 

government. Thus, Executive Order 

13175 does not apply to this action. 

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of 

Children From Environmental Health 

Risks and Safety Risks 

EPA interprets EO 13045 (62 FR 

19885, April 23, 1997) 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 implements 

specific standards established by 

Congress in statutes. However, to the 

extent this rule will limit emissions, 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(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

Act of 1995 (‘‘NTTAA’’), Public Law 

104–113, 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note) 

directs EPA to use voluntary consensus 

standards in its regulatory activities 

unless to do so would be inconsistent 

with applicable law or otherwise 

impractical. Voluntary consensus 

standards are technical standards (e.g., 

materials specifications, test methods, 

sampling procedures, and business 

practices) that are developed or adopted 

by voluntary consensus standards 

bodies. NTTAA directs EPA to provide 

Congress, through OMB, explanations 

when the Agency decides not to use 

available and applicable voluntary 

consensus standards. 

This action does not involve technical 

standards. Today’s action does not 

require the public to perform activities 

conducive to the use of voluntary 

consensus standards. Therefore, EPA 

did not consider the use of any 

voluntary consensus standards. 

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 rule 

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. This rule has 

the potential to limit emissions of NOX, 

SO2 and PM2.5 from one facility should 

that facility resume operations. 

K. Congressional Review Act 

The Congressional Review Act, 5 

U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small 

Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides 

that before a rule may take effect, the 

agency promulgating the rule must 

submit a rule report, which includes a 

copy of the rule, to each House of the 

Congress and to the Comptroller General 

of the United States. Section 804 

exempts from section 801 the following 

types of rules: (1) Rules of particular 

applicability; (2) rules relating to agency 

management or personnel; and (3) rules 

of agency organization, procedure, or 

practice that do not substantially affect 

the rights or obligations of non-agency 

parties. 5 U.S.C. 804(3). EPA is not 

required to submit a rule report 

regarding today’s action under section 

801 because this is a rule of particular 

applicability. 

L. Judicial Review 

Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, 

petitions for judicial review of this 

action must be filed in the United States 

Court of Appeals for the appropriate 

circuit by December 21, 2012. Pursuant 

to CAA section 307(d)(1)(B), this action 

is subject to the requirements of CAA 

section 307(d) as it promulgates a FIP 

under CAA section 110(c). Filing a 

petition for reconsideration by the 

Administrator of this final rule does not 

affect the finality of this action for the 

purposes of judicial review nor does it 

extend the time within which a petition 

for judicial review may be filed, and 

shall not postpone the effectiveness of 

such rule or action. This action may not 

be challenged later in proceedings to 

enforce its requirements. See CAA 

section 307(b)(2). 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Incorporation by 

reference, Nitrogen dioxide, Particulate 

matter, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile 

organic compounds. 

Dated: October 15, 2012. 

Lisa P. Jackson, 

Administrator. 

Part 52, chapter I, title 40 of the Code 

of Federal Regulations is amended as 

follows: 

PART 52—APPROVAL AND 

PROMULGATION OF 

IMPLEMENTATION PLANS 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 52 

continues to read as follows: 

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

Subpart CCC—Virgin Islands 

■ 2. Section 52.2781 is amended by 

adding paragraph (d) to read as follows: 

§ 52.2781 Visibility protection. 

* * * * * 

(d) Regional Haze Plan for Virgin 

Islands National Park. The regional haze 

plan for the Virgin Islands consists of a 

Federal Implementation Plan entitled: 

‘‘FEDERAL IMPLEMENTATION PLAN 

FOR REGIONAL HAZE FOR THE 

UNITED STATES VIRGIN ISLANDS.’’ 

The applicable requirements consist of: 

(1) Applicability. This section 

addresses Clean Air Act requirements 

and EPA’s rules to prevent and remedy 

future and existing man-made 

impairment of visibility in the 

mandatory Class I area of the Virgin 

Islands National Park through a 

Regional Haze Program. This section 

applies to the owner and operator of 

HOVENSA L.L.C. (HOVENSA), a 

petroleum refinery located on St. Croix, 

U.S. Virgin Islands. 

(2) Definitions. Terms not defined 

below shall have the meaning given 

them in the Clean Air Act or EPA’s 

regulations implementing the Clean Air 

Act. For purposes of this section: NO X

means nitrogen oxides. 

Owner/operator means any person 

who owns, leases, operates, controls, or 

supervises a facility or source identified 

in paragraph (d)(1) of this section. 

PM means particulate matter. 

Process unit means any collection of 

structures and/or equipment that 

processes, assembles, applies, blends, or 

otherwise uses material inputs to 

produce or store an intermediate or a 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with 
64422 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 204 / Monday, October 22, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

completed product. A single stationary 

source may contain more than one 

process unit, and a process unit may 

contain more than one emissions unit. 

For a petroleum refinery, there are 

several categories of process units that 

could include: Those that separate and/ 

or distill petroleum feedstocks; those 

that change molecular structures; 

petroleum treating processes; auxiliary 

facilities, such as steam generators and 

hydrogen production units; and those 

that load, unload, blend or store 

intermediate or completed products. 

SO 2 means sulfur dioxide. 

Startup means the setting in operation 

of an affected facility for any purpose. 

(3) Reasonable Progress Measures. On 

June 7, 2011, EPA and HOVENSA 

entered into a Consent Decree (CD) in 

the U.S. District Court for the Virgin 

Islands to resolve alleged Clean Air Act 

violations at its St. Croix, Virgin Islands 

facility. The CD requires HOVENSA, 

among other things, to achieve emission 

limits and install new pollution controls 

pursuant to a schedule for compliance. 

The measures required by the CD reduce 

emissions of NOX by 5,031 tons per year 

(tpy) and SO2 by 3,460 tpy. The 

emission limitations, pollution controls, 

schedules for compliance, reporting, 

and recordkeeping provisions of the 

HOVENSA CD constitute an element of 

the long term strategy and address the 

reasonable progress provisions of 40 

CFR 51.308(d)(1). Should the existing 

federally enforceable HOVENSA CD be 

revised, EPA will reevaluate, and if 

necessary, revise the FIP after public 

notice and comment. 

(4) HOVENSA requirement for 

notification. HOVENSA must notify 

EPA 60 days in advance of startup and 

resumption of operation of refinery 

process units at the HOVENSA, St. 

Croix, Virgin Islands facility. HOVENSA 

shall submit such notice to the Director 

of the Clean Air and Sustainability 

Division, U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency Region 2, 290 Broadway, 25th 

Floor, New York, New York, 10007– 

1866. HOVENSA’s notification to EPA 

that it intends to startup refinery 

process units must include information 

regarding those emission units that will 

be operating, including unit design 

parameters such as heat input and 

hourly emissions, information on 

potential to emit limitations, pollution 

controls and control efficiencies, and 

schedules for compliance. EPA will 

revise the FIP as necessary, after public 

notice and comment, in accordance 

with regional haze requirements 

including the ‘‘reasonable progress’’ 

provisions in 40 CFR 51.308(d)(1). 

HOVENSA will be required to install 

any controls that are required by the 

revised FIP as expeditiously as 

practicable, but no later than 5 years 

after the effective date of the revised 

FIP. 

[FR Doc. 2012–25806 Filed 10–19–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R05–OAR–2012–0541; FRL–9733–6] 

Approval and Promulgation of Air 

Quality Implementation Plans; Illinois; 

Greif Packaging, LLC Adjusted 

Standard 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Direct final rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is approving into the 

Illinois State Implementation Plan (SIP) 

an adjusted standard for the Greif 

Packaging, LLC facility located at 5 S 

220 Frontenac Road in Naperville, 

Illinois (Greif). On June 20, 2012, the 

Illinois Environmental Protection 

Agency (IEPA) submitted to EPA for 

approval an adjustment to the general 

rule, Organic Material Emission 

Standards and Limitations for the 

Chicago Area; Subpart TT: Other 

Emission Units, as it applies to 

emissions of volatile organic matter 

(VOM) from Greif’s fiber drum container 

manufacturing facility. VOM, as defined 

by the State of Illinois, is identical to 

volatile organic compound (VOC), as 

defined by EPA. The adjusted standard 

replaces portions of the general rule for 

VOM emissions with site-specific 

Reasonably Available Control 

Technology (RACT) requirements for 

the Greif facility. 

DATES: This direct final rule will be 

effective December 21, 2012, unless EPA 

receives adverse comments by 

November 21, 2012. If adverse 

comments are received, EPA will 

publish a timely withdrawal of the 

direct final rule in the Federal 

Registerinforming the public that the 

rule will not take effect. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R05– 

OAR–2012–0541, by one of the 

following methods: 

1. www.regulations.gov: Follow the 

on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

2. Email: aburano.douglas@epa.gov. 

3. Fax: (312) 408–2279. 

4. Mail: Doug Aburano, Chief, 

Attainment Planning and Maintenance 

Section, Air Programs Branch (AR–18J), 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 

77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, 

Illinois 60604. 

5. Hand Delivery: Doug Aburano, 

Chief, Attainment Planning and 

Maintenance Section, Air Programs 

Branch (AR–18J), U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, 77 West Jackson 

Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604. 

Such deliveries are only accepted 

during the Regional Office normal hours 

of operation, and special arrangements 

should be made for deliveries of boxed 

information. The Regional Office official 

hours of business are Monday through 

Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., excluding 

Federal holidays. 

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

Docket ID No. EPA–R05–OAR–2012– 

0541. EPA’s policy is that all comments 

received will be included in the public 

docket without change and may be 

made available online at 

www.regulations.gov, including any 

personal information provided, unless 

the comment includes information 

claimed to be Confidential Business 

Information (CBI) or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Do not submit information that you 

consider to be CBI or otherwise 

protected through www.regulations.gov 

or email. The www.regulations.gov Web 

site is an ‘‘anonymous access’’ system, 

which means EPA will not know your 

identity or contact information unless 

you provide it in the body of your 

comment. If you send an email 

comment directly to EPA without going 

through www.regulations.gov your email 

address will be automatically captured 

and included as part of the comment 

that is placed in the public docket and 

made available on the Internet. If you 

submit an electronic comment, EPA 

recommends that you include your 

name and other contact information in 

the body of your comment and with any 

disk or CD–ROM you submit. If EPA 

cannot read your comment due to 

technical difficulties and cannot contact 

you for clarification, EPA may not be 

able to consider your comment. 

Electronic files should avoid the use of 

special characters, any form of 

encryption, and be free of any defects or 

viruses. 

Docket: All documents in the docket 

are listed in the www.regulations.gov 

index. Although listed in the index, 

some information is not publicly 

available, e.g., CBI or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Certain other material, such as 

copyrighted material, will be publicly 

available only in hard copy. Publicly 

available docket materials are available 

either electronically in 

www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with