37842 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 122 / Monday, June 25, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW., 

Atlanta, Georgia 30303–8960. The 

telephone number is (404) 562–9061. 

Ms. Sara Waterson can be reached via 

electronic mail at waterson.sara@epa.

gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On March 

12, 2008, EPA issued a revised ozone 

national ambient air quality standard 

(NAAQS). See 73 FR 16436. The current 

action, however, is being taken to 

address requirements under the 1997 

ozone NAAQS. For additional 

information see the direct final rule 

which is published in the Rules Section 

of this Federal Register. In the Final 

Rules Section of this Federal Register, 

EPA is approving the State’s 

implementation plan revision as a direct 

final rule without prior proposal 

because the Agency views this as a 

noncontroversial submittal and 

anticipates no adverse comments. A 

detailed rationale for the approval is set 

forth in the direct final rule. If no 

adverse comments are received in 

response to this rule, no further activity 

is contemplated. If EPA receives adverse 

comments, the direct final rule will be 

withdrawn and all public comments 

received will be addressed in a 

subsequent final rule based on this 

proposed rule. EPA will not institute a 

second comment period on this 

document. Any parties interested in 

commenting on this document should 

do so at this time. 

Dated: June 8, 2012. 

A. Stanley Meiburg, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region 4. 

[FR Doc. 2012–14953 Filed 6–22–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R02–OAR–2012–0457, FRL–9691–4] 

Approval and Promulgation of Air 

Quality Implementation Plans; United 

States Virgin Islands; Regional Haze 

Federal Implementation Plan 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to 

promulgate a Federal Implementation 

Plan (the Plan) to address regional haze 

in the Territory of the United States 

Virgin Islands. EPA proposes to 

determine that the Plan 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 proposed Plan 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 Plan for the 

Virgin Islands will address Reasonable 

Progress toward improving visibility 

and evaluation of Best Available Retrofit 

Control Technology. The reader is 

referred to the Regional Haze Virgin 

Islands Federal Implementation Plan 

found in the Docket for this action, 

which contains a complete description 

of all of the elements to address regional 

haze. EPA is taking comments on this 

proposal and plans to follow with a 

final action. 

DATES: Comments: Comments must be 

received on or before August 24, 2012. 

Public Hearing: If you wish to request 

a hearing and present testimony, you 

should notify Mr. Geoffrey Garrison on 

or before July 6, 2012, and indicate the 

nature of the issues you wish to provide 

oral testimony during the hearing. Mr. 

Garrison’s contact information is found 

in FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. 

Oral testimony will be limited to 5 

minutes per person. The hearing will be 

strictly limited to the subject matter of 

this proposal, the scope of which is 

discussed below. EPA will not respond 

to comments during the public hearing. 

EPA will not be providing equipment 

for commenters to show overhead slides 

or make computerized slide 

presentations. A verbatim transcript of 

the hearing and written statements will 

be made available for copying during 

normal working hours at the address 

listed for inspection of documents, and 

also included in the Docket. Any 

member of the public may file a written 

statement by the close of the comment 

period. Written statements (duplicate 

copies preferred) should be submitted to 

Docket Number EPA–R2–OAR–2012– 

0457, at the address listed for 

submitting comments. Note that any 

written comments and supporting 

information submitted during the 

comment period will be considered 

with the same weight as any oral 

comments presented at the public 

hearing. If no requests for a public 

hearing are received by close of business 

on July 6, 2012, a hearing will not be 

held; please contact Mr. Garrison to find 

out if the hearing will actually be held 

or will be cancelled for lack of any 

request to speak. 

ADDRESSES: Public Hearing: A public 

hearing, if requested, will be held at 

Virgin Islands Department of Planning 

and Natural Resources, St. Thomas 

Office, Cyril E. King Airport, Terminal 

Building, St. Thomas, VI 00802, on July 

17, 2012, beginning at 6:00 p.m. 

Comments: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket Number EPA–R02– 

OAR–2012–0457, by one of the 

following methods: 

• www.regulations.gov: Follow the 

on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

• Email: Werner.Raymond@epa.gov. 

• Fax: 212–637–3901. 

• Mail: Raymond Werner, Chief, Air 

Programs Branch, Environmental 

Protection Agency, Region 2 Office, 290 

Broadway, 25th Floor, New York, New 

York 10007–1866. 

• Hand Delivery: Raymond Werner, 

Chief, Air Programs Branch, 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 2 Office, 290 Broadway, 25th 

Floor, New York, New York 10007– 

1866. Such deliveries are only accepted 

during the Regional Office’s normal 

hours of operation. The Regional 

Office’s official hours of business are 

Monday through Friday, 8:30 to 4:30 

excluding Federal holidays. Hand 

Delivery of comments will also be 

accepted by Mr. Jim Casey, Virgin 

Islands Coordinator, Environmental 

Protection Agency, Region 2 Virgin 

Islands Field Office, Tunick Building, 

Suite 102, 1336 Beltjen Road, St. 

Thomas, VI 00801, 340–714–2333. 

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

Docket Number EPA–R02–OAR–2012– 

0457. 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 


erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 122 / Monday, June 25, 2012 / Proposed Rules 37843 

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 or any form of 

encryption, and be free of any defects or 

viruses. For additional information 

about EPA’s public docket visit the EPA 

Docket Center homepage at http:// 

www.epa.gov/air/docket.html. 

Docket: 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., 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 http:// 

www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at: 

• Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 2 Office, Air Programs Branch, 

290 Broadway, 25th Floor, New York, 

New York 10007–1866. 

• Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 2 Virgin Islands Field Office, 

Tunick Building, Suite 102, 1336 

Beltjen Road, St. Thomas, VI 00801. 

• Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 2, St. Croix Public Affairs Office, 

4200 Estate St. John #4237, 

Christiansted, VI 00820. 

EPA requests, if at all possible, that 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, 8 a.m. to 

4 p.m., excluding Federal holidays. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

• Robert F. Kelly, State 

Implementation 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. 

• Geoffrey M. Garrison, Community 

Involvement Coordinator, Public Affairs 

Division, U.S. EPA Region 2, St. Croix, 

U.S. Virgin Islands, BB: 340–201–5328, 

Email: garrison.geoffrey@epa.gov. 

• Jim Casey, Virgin Islands 

Coordinator, Environmental Protection 

Agency, Region 2 Virgin Islands Field 

Office, Tunick Building, Suite 102, 1336 

Beltjen Road, St. Thomas, VI 00801, 

340–714–2333, Email: 

casey.jim@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 proposing? 

II. What is the background for EPA’s 

proposed action? 

III. What are the requirements for Regional 

Haze SIPs? 

A. The Act and the Regional Haze Rule 

(RHR) 

B. Determination of Baseline, Natural, and 

Current Visibility Conditions 

C. Determination of Reasonable Progress 

Goals (RPGs) 

D. Best Available Retrofit Control 

Technology (BART) 

E. Long-Term Strategy (LTS) 

F. Coordinating Regional Haze and 

Reasonably Attributable Visibility 

Impairment (RAVI) 

G. Monitoring Strategy and Other 

Implementation Plan Requirements 

H. Consultation With States and Federal 

Land Managers (FLMs) 

IV. What is the proposed implementation 

plan to address regional haze in the 

Virgin Islands? 

A. Affected Class I Areas 

1. Relative Contributions of Pollutants to 

Visibility Impairment 

B. Long-Term Strategy/Strategies (LTS) 

1. Emissions Inventory for 2018 With 

Federal and Territory Control 

Requirements 

2. Reasonable Progress Goals 

i. Identification of Pollutants for 

Reasonable Progress 

ii. Determining Reasonable Progress 

Through Island-Specific Emissions 

Inventories 

iii. Reasonable Progress Goals—2018 

Visibility Projections 

iv. Visibility Improvement Compared to 

URP 

v. Interstate Consultation Requirement 

vi. Identification of Anthropogenic Sources 

of Visibility Impairment 

vii. Emissions Reductions Due to Ongoing 

Air Pollution Programs 

3. BART 

i. BART-Eligible Sources in the Virgin 

Islands 

ii. Sources Subject to BART 

iii. BART Evaluations for Sources 

Identified as Subject to BART by EPA 

C. Consultation With Federal Land 

Managers 

D. Periodic SIP Revisions and Five-Year 

Progress Reports 

E. Coordinating Regional Haze and 

Reasonably Attributable Visibility 

Impairment (RAVI) LTS 

F. Agricultural and Forestry Smoke 

Management Techniques 

G. Monitoring Strategy and Other 

Implementation Plan Requirements 

V. What action is EPA proposing to take? 

VI. 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. What action is EPA proposing? 

EPA is proposing a plan to address 

regional haze in the Virgin Islands 

under the Clean Air Act (CAA or the 

Act) sections 301(a) and 110(k)(3). EPA 

proposes a Federal Implementation Plan 

(FIP) which includes measures that will 

reduce emissions that contribute to 

regional haze in the Virgin Islands and 

make progress toward the Reasonable 

Progress Goal (RPG) for 2018, as 

determined by EPA. RPGs are interim 

visibility goals towards meeting the 

Act’s national visibility goal of no manmade contribution to visibility 

reduction. In addition, EPA proposes 

Best Available Retrofit Technology 

(BART) control determinations for 

sources in the Virgin Islands that may 

be subject to BART. This proposed 

action and the accompanying FIP 

documents that are available in the 

Docket explain the basis for EPA’s 

proposed actions on the Virgin Islands 

Regional Haze FIP. 

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 us for approval. Once approved, a SIP 

is federally enforceable, that 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 we 

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 required regional 

haze SIP elements of 40 CFR 51.308. 


erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
37844 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 122 / Monday, June 25, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

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 the 

Virgin Islands failed to submit a 

Regional Haze SIP, we are required to 

promulgate a Regional Haze FIP. 

II. What is the background for EPA’s 

proposed action? 

Regional haze is visibility impairment 

that is produced by many sources and 

activities which are located across a 

broad geographic area and emit fine 

particles and their precursors (e.g., 

sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, and in 

some cases, ammonia and volatile 

organic compounds). Fine particle 

precursors react in the atmosphere to 

form fine particulate matter (PM2.5) (e.g., 

sulfates, nitrates, organic carbon, 

elemental carbon, and soil dust), which 

also impairs visibility by scattering and 

absorbing light. Visibility impairment 

reduces the clarity, color, and visible 

distance that one can see. Visibility 

impairment caused by air pollution 

occurs virtually all the time at most 

national parks and wilderness areas, 

many of which are also referred to as 

Federal Class I areas. (CAA section 

162(a)). 

In the 1977 Amendments to the CAA, 

Congress initiated a program for 

protecting visibility in the nation’s 

national parks and wilderness areas. 

Section 169A(a)(1) of the Act 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 which 

impairment results from manmade air 

pollution.’’ In 1990 Congress added 

section 169B to the Act to address 

regional haze issues. On July 1, 1999, 

EPA promulgated the Regional Haze 

Rule (RHR) (64 FR 35714, July 1, 1999). 

The requirement to submit a Regional 

Haze SIP applies to all 50 states, the 

District of Columbia and the Virgin 

Islands. 40 CFR 51.308(b) of the RHR 

required states to submit the first 

implementation plan addressing 

regional haze visibility impairment no 

later than December 17, 2007. 

On January 15, 2009, EPA issued a 

finding that the Virgin Islands had 

failed to submit the Regional Haze SIP 

(74 FR 2392, January 15, 2009). EPA’s 

January 15, 2009 finding established a 

two-year deadline of January 15, 2011 

for EPA to either approve a Regional 

Haze SIP for the Virgin Islands, or adopt 

a FIP. This proposed action is intended 

to address the January 15, 2009 finding. 

EPA continues to work with the Virgin 

Islands Government to develop a State 

Implementation Plan for Regional Haze. 

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 Virgin Islands 

National Park is sufficiently far from the 

continental United States, therefore 

there was no need for the Virgin Islands 

government to participate in any of 

these RPOs. 

III. What are the requirements for 

regional haze SIPs? 

The following is a basic explanation 

of the RHR. See 40 CFR 51.308 for a 

complete listing of the regulations under 

which this FIP was developed. 

A. The Act and the Regional Haze Rule 

(RHR) 

Regional haze SIPs must assure 

reasonable progress towards the 

national goal of achieving natural 

visibility conditions in Class I areas. 

Section 169A of the Act and EPA’s 

implementing regulations require states 

to establish long-term strategies for 

making reasonable progress toward 

meeting this goal. Implementation 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, 

and require these sources, where 

appropriate, to install BART controls for 

the purpose of eliminating or reducing 

visibility impairment. The specific 

regional haze SIP requirements are 

discussed in further detail below. 

B. Determination of Baseline, Natural, 

and Current Visibility Conditions 

The RHR establishes the deciview or 

‘‘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 is 

determined by measuring the visual 

range, which is the greatest distance, in 

kilometers or miles, at which a dark 

object can be viewed against the sky. 

The dv is calculated from visibility 

measurements. Each dv change is an 

equal incremental change in visibility 

perceived by the human eye. For this 

reason, EPA believes it is a useful 

measure for tracking progress in 

improving visibility. Most people can 

detect a change in visibility at one dv. 

The preamble to the RHR provides 

additional details about the deciview 

(64 FR 35725, July 1, 1999). 

The dv is used in expressing RPGs 

(which are interim visibility goals 

towards meeting the national visibility 

goal), defining baseline, current, and 

natural conditions, and tracking changes 

in visibility. The regional haze SIPs 

must contain measures that ensure 

‘‘reasonable progress’’ toward the 

national goal of preventing and 

remedying visibility impairment in 

Class I areas caused by manmade air 

pollution by reducing anthropogenic 

emissions that cause regional haze. The 

national goal is a return to natural 

conditions, i.e., manmade sources of air 

pollution would no longer impair 

visibility in Class I areas. 

To track changes in visibility over 

time 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, the RHR requires states to 

calculate the degree of existing visibility 

impairment at each Class I area at the 

time of each regional haze SIP submittal 

and review progress midway through 

each 10-year planning period. To do 

this, the RHR requires states to 

determine the degree of impairment (in 

dv) 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, the RHR 

requires states to develop an estimate of 


erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 122 / Monday, June 25, 2012 / Proposed Rules 37845 

1 Guidance for Estimating Natural Visibility 

conditions under the Regional Haze Rule, 

September 2003, (EPA–454/B–03–005 located at 

http://www.epa.gov/ttncaaa1/t1/memoranda/ 

rh_envcurhr_gd.pdf), (hereinafter referred to as 

‘‘EPA’s 2003 Natural Visibility Guidance’’), and 

Guidance for Tracking Progress Under the Regional 

Haze Rule (EPA–454/B–03–004 September 2003 at 

http://www.epa.gov/ttncaaa1/t1/memoranda/ 

rh_tpurhr_gd.pdf)), (hereinafter referred to as 

‘‘EPA’s 2003 Tracking Progress Guidance’’). 

2 Guidance for Setting Reasonable Progress Goals 

under the Regional Haze Program, (‘‘EPA’s 

Reasonable Progress Guidance’’), July 1, 2007, 

memorandum from William L. Wehrum, Acting 

Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation, to 

EPA Regional Administrators, EPA Regions 1–10 

(pp. 4–2, 5–1). 

3The set of ‘‘major stationary sources’’ potentially 

subject to BART are listed in CAA section 

169A(g)(7). 

natural visibility conditions for the 

purposes 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. EPA has provided 

guidance to states regarding how to 

calculate baseline, natural and current 

visibility conditions.1

For the initial regional haze SIPs that 

were due by December 17, 2007, 

baseline visibility conditions were used 

as the starting points for assessing 

current visibility impairment. Baseline 

visibility conditions represent the 

degree of impairment for the 20 percent 

least impaired days and 20 percent most 

impaired days at the time the regional 

haze program was established. Using 

monitoring data for 2000 through 2004, 

the RHR required states 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 made. In general, the 

2000–2004 baseline period is 

considered the time from which 

improvement in visibility is measured. 

C. Determination of Reasonable Progress 

Goals (RPGs) 

The submission of a series of regional 

haze SIPs from the states that establish 

RPGs for Class I areas for each 

(approximately) 10-year planning period 

is the vehicle for ensuring continuing 

progress towards achieving the natural 

visibility goal. 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) 10-year period of the 

SIP, and ensure no degradation in 

visibility for the least impaired days 

over the same period. 

States, and in this case, the Virgin 

Islands government, have significant 

discretion in establishing RPGs, but are 

required to consider the following 

factors established in the Act and in 

EPA’s RHR: (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. (See 40 

CFR 51.308(d)(1)(i)(A)). States have 

considerable flexibility in how they take 

these factors into consideration, as 

noted in our Reasonable Progress 

guidance.2 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’’ or the 

‘‘glidepath’’) and the emission reduction 

measures needed to achieve that rate of 

progress over the 10-year period of the 

SIP. 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)). 

D. Best Available Retrofit Control 

Technology (BART) 

Section 169A of the Act 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, the Act 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 

stationary sources 3 built between 1962 

and 1977 procure, install, and operate 

the ‘‘Best Available Retrofit Control 

Technology’’ as determined by the state. 

(CAA 169A(b)(2)(A)). States are directed 

to conduct BART determinations for 

such 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 equal or 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 40 CFR 

part 51, Appendix Y (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 

applicable source. The BART 

Guidelines require states to use the 

approach set forth in the BART 

Guidelines in making a BART 

applicability determination for a fossil 

fuel-fired electric generating plant with 

a total generating capacity in excess of 

750 megawatts. The BART Guidelines 

encourage, but do not require states to 

follow the BART Guidelines in making 

BART determinations for other types of 

sources. 

The BART Guidelines recommend 

that states address all visibility 

impairing pollutants emitted by a source 

in the BART determination process. The 

most significant visibility impairing 

pollutants are sulfur dioxide (SO2), 

nitrogen oxides (NOX), and PM. The 

BART Guidelines direct states to use 

their best judgment in determining 

whether volatile organic compounds 

(VOCs), or ammonia (NH3) and 

ammonia compounds impair visibility 

in Class I areas. 

In their SIPs, states must identify 

potential BART sources, described as 

‘‘BART-eligible sources’’ in the RHR, 

and document their BART control 

determination analyses. In making 

BART determinations, section 

169A(g)(2) of the Act 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 to be assigned to each 

factor. (70 FR 39170, July 6, 2005). 

A regional haze SIP must include 

source-specific BART emission limits 

and compliance schedules for each 

source subject to BART. Once a state has 

made its BART determination, the 

BART controls must be installed and in 

operation as expeditiously as 

practicable, but no later than five years 

after the date of EPA approval of the 


erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
37846 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 122 / Monday, June 25, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

regional haze SIP, as required by the Act 

(section 169A(g)(4)) and by the RHR (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. States 

have the flexibility to choose the type of 

control measures they will use to meet 

the requirements of BART. 

E. Long-Term Strategy (LTS) 

Consistent with the requirement in 

section 169A(b) of the Act, that states 

include in their regional haze SIP a 10 

to 15 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 

SIPs. The LTS is the compilation of all 

control measures a state will use to meet 

any applicable RPGs. The LTS must 

include ‘‘enforceable emissions 

limitations, compliance schedules, and 

other measures as necessary to achieve 

the reasonable progress goals’’ for all 

Class I areas within, or 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 impacted state to 

coordinate with the contributing states 

in order to develop coordinated 

emissions management strategies. (40 

CFR 51.308(d)(3)(i)). Since sources in 

the Virgin Islands do not affect visibility 

in any other states’ Class I areas, this 

particular LTS requirement does not 

apply. 

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 seven factors 

listed below is taken into account in 

developing their LTS: (1) Emission 

reductions due to ongoing air pollution 

control programs, including measures to 

address Reasonably Attributable 

Visibility Impairment (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; (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)). 

F. Coordinating Regional Haze and 

Reasonably Attributable Visibility 

Impairment (RAVI) 

As part of the RHR, EPA revised 40 

CFR 51.306(c) regarding the LTS for 

states with Class I areas 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 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 

reasonably attributable and regional 

haze visibility impairment, and the state 

must submit the first such coordinated 

LTS with its first regional haze SIP 

revision. 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 reviews of a state’s LTS 

must report on both regional haze and 

RAVI impairment and must be 

submitted to EPA as a SIP revision, in 

accordance with 40 CFR 51.308. 

G. Monitoring Strategy and Other 

Implementation Plan Requirements 

If a state has a Class I Federal Area in 

the state, the requirements in section 

51.308(d)(4) of the RHR must be met. 

These requirements include a 

monitoring strategy for measuring, 

characterizing, and reporting of regional 

haze visibility impairment that is 

representative of all mandatory Class I 

Federal areas within the state and this 

strategy must be coordinated with the 

monitoring strategy required in section 

51.305 for RAVI. Compliance with this 

requirement may be met through 

participation in the Interagency 

Monitoring of Protected Visual 

Environment (IMPROVE) network. The 

monitoring strategy is due with the first 

regional haze SIP, and it must be 

reviewed every five years. Note that 

section 51.308(d)(4) contains a list of 

additional items the implementation 

plan must address. 

H. Consultation With States and Federal 

Land Managers (FLMs) 

The RHR requires that states consult 

with 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 60 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. Further, 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. 

IV. What is the proposed 

implementation plan to address 

regional haze in the Virgin Islands? 

A. Affected Class I Areas 

In accordance with 40 CFR 51.308(d), 

we have indentified one Class I area in 

the Territory of the Virgin Islands: The 

Virgin Islands National Park, where the 

FLM—the National Park Service—has 

identified visual impairment as an 

important value that must be addressed 

in regional haze plans. Thus, the Virgin 

Islands, and in this case, EPA consulting 

with the Government of the Territory of 

the Virgin Islands, must develop a 

Regional Haze Plan that addresses the 

causes of visibility impairment in the 

Class I area, that describes the long-term 

emission strategy, the consultation 

processes, and other requirements in 

EPA’s regional haze regulations. 

Because the Virgin Islands are home to 

a Class I area, we will address the 

following Regional Haze Plan elements: 

(a) Calculation of baseline and natural 

visibility conditions, (b) establishment 

of RPGs, (c) monitoring requirements, 

and (d) RAVI requirements as required 

by EPA’s RHR. These elements will 

constitute a FIP, developed in 

consultation with the FLM and the 

involvement of the Virgin Islands 

Government and its environmental 

agency, the Virgin Islands Department 

of Planning and Natural Resources 

(VIDPNR). 

1. Relative Contributions of Pollutants 

to Visibility Impairment 

An important step toward identifying 

reasonable progress measures is to 

identify the key pollutants contributing 

to visibility impairment at each Class I 

area. To understand the relative benefit 


erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 122 / Monday, June 25, 2012 / Proposed Rules 37847 

4Please refer to the Virgin Islands Regional Haze 

FIP contained in the Docket for this action, for 

additional information regarding Saharan Dust. 

of further reducing emissions from 

different pollutants, EPA evaluated data 

from the IMPROVE air quality station, 

located in the Virgin Islands National 

Park near Cruz Bay, on the western end 

of the island of St. John. On the days 

with the worst visibility, the following 

table lists the particulate species that 

contribute to reduced visibility. 

TABLE 1—VISIBILITY REDUCTION FROM PARTICULATES ON THE WORST 20% OF DAYS IN 2004 

Coarse Particulates .............................................................................................................................................. 17.6 Mm¥1 36.4% 

Sea Salt ................................................................................................................................................................ 9.88 Mm¥1 20.5% 

Sulfates ................................................................................................................................................................. 9.29 Mm¥1 19.2% 

Fine Soil ................................................................................................................................................................ 6.68 Mm¥1 13.8% 

Nitrates .................................................................................................................................................................. 2.59 Mm¥1 5.4% 

Elemental Carbon ................................................................................................................................................. 1.40 Mm¥1 2.9% 

Organic Carbon .................................................................................................................................................... 0.90 Mm¥1 1.9% 

Megameters¥1 (Mm¥1) are a unit of visibility impairment. Larger values are greater amounts of interference with visibility. 

The size of particulates from Saharan 

Dust range from 2 to 5 microns, so 

Saharan Dust is a major contributor to 

both fine (less than 2.5 microns) soil 

and coarse matter (greater than 2.5 

microns). As shown in research studies 

and ongoing satellite data, Saharan Dust 

is transported in large quantities across 

the Atlantic Ocean and mixed in the 

surface air where it reduces visibility. 

This effect is most often seen, and 

recorded in particulate samples from the 

IMPROVE monitor, in the early summer 

months as tropical waves move from 

Africa across the Atlantic Ocean to the 

Caribbean Sea and beyond. Since fine 

soil in the air is often largely Saharan 

Dust, and increases in fine soil and 

coarse particulate are found during 

documented Sahara Dust events, it is 

likely that all or most of the fine soil and 

coarse particulate found on days with 

impaired visibility is a result of Saharan 

Dust. 

EPA commissioned a microinventory 

of emissions on St. John to determine if 

other sources, particularly local sources 

of fine or coarse dust, could be 

contributing to the large amount of fine 

soil and coarse particulate found on the 

IMPROVE filters and contributing to 

high impairment of visibility on St. 

John. The largest anthropogenic sources 

of particles found in the microinventory 

were dirt from the roadways and some 

dust from construction activities. 

Other potential sources of particulates 

that reduce visibility are combustion 

sources on the Virgin Islands, including 

the HOVENSA refinery on St. Croix, 

ships that serve St. John and 

miscellaneous combustion sources on 

St. John. 

Trajectory analysis conducted by EPA 

for days with the highest contributions 

to visibility impairment showed that 

fine soil and coarse dust, which are 

major contributors to Virgin Islands 

haze episodes, match with long range 

transport from Africa. Also, sulfates and 

nitrates, which were at lower 

concentrations than found in the 

continental United States, did not 

correspond to a group of particular 

sources on days with higher sulfate and 

nitrate concentrations. Combustion 

products are often found on days when 

the trajectories began in the distant 

continental United States up to two 

weeks earlier and when air patterns are 

looping though the Caribbean region in 

general. There was no obvious or 

consistent source for days high in 

combustion products. 

These results support the hypothesis 

that the major contributor to visibility 

impairment in the Virgin Islands 

National Park is Saharan Dust. Though 

on some days, sulfate is a significant 

contributor to visibility impairment (but 

still a small contributor compared to 

continental United States monitoring 

sites). The Docket contains the results of 

the modeling using trajectories and 

using photochemical dispersion models. 

B. Long-Term Strategy/Strategies (LTS) 

As described above, the Long Term 

Strategy (LTS) is a compilation of 

control measures relied on to support 

the RPGs for the Virgin Islands National 

Park. The LTS for the Virgin Islands for 

the first implementation period will 

address the emissions reductions from 

Federal, territorial and local controls 

that take effect in the Territory from the 

baseline period starting in 2000 until 

2018. 

EPA has reviewed potential strategies 

to improve visibility in the Virgin 

Islands and determined that the 

following strategies are reasonably 

available for application in the Virgin 

Islands: Reductions in sulfur in fuel 

from ferries and cruise ships, the 

Federal motor vehicle control program, 

and the consent decree for the 

HOVENSA refinery on St. Croix. In this 

action, EPA proposes these controls that 

we determined are likely to have the 

largest impacts currently on visibility at 

the Virgin Islands National Park. EPA 

estimated emissions reductions for 

2018, based on all controls required 

under Federal and Territory regulations 

for the 2000–2018 period (including 

BART), and comparing projected 

visibility improvement with the uniform 

rate of progress for the Virgin Islands 

National Park Class I area. While the 

LTS for the Virgin Islands does not 

reach the reasonable progress goal for 

2018 for the Virgin Islands, reducing 

other emissions is not feasible due to 

the Virgin Islands’ unique 

circumstances and lack of major 

emission sources, as discussed further 

in this proposal. 

1. Emissions Inventory for 2018 With 

Federal and Territory Control 

Requirements 

The emissions inventory used to 

determine the impact of sources in the 

Virgin Islands on visibility in the Class 

I area and the impact of planned 

emission controls is based on an 

emission inventory developed by an 

EPA contractor for the island of St. John, 

an inventory of significant sources in 

recent major source permit applications, 

additional information collected from 

the HOVENSA refinery on St. Croix and 

estimated emissions from other islands 

surrounding St. John, not included in 

the Territory of the United States Virgin 

Islands. The emissions reductions used 

to determine the effects on improving 

visibility in the National Park were 

based on projections of Federal and 

Territorial emission control programs, 

and other emission reductions specific 

to the Virgin Islands. EPA has 

determined that the major effect on 

visibility impairment in the Virgin 

Islands National Park is long-range 

transport of Saharan Dust.4 However, 

EPA has also determined that 

anthropogenic emissions of sulfates, 

nitrates, particulate carbon and other 

fine and coarse particulates are 

significant to PM mass and visibility 

impairment in the Virgin Islands 

National Park. The BART guidelines 

direct states to exercise judgment in 

deciding whether volatile organic 


erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
37848 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 122 / Monday, June 25, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

compounds and ammonia impair 

visibility in their Class I area(s) and 

whether their emissions can be 

addressed at this time. Total ammonia 

emissions in the region are extremely 

small and will not be addressed at this 

time. As for volatile organic 

compounds, they do not directly affect 

visibility, but can form particulate 

compounds in the presence of nitrogen 

oxides and radicals. The development of 

an emission inventory for volatile 

organic compounds emitted in the 

Virgin Islands is in its early stages, so 

EPA proposes to defer evaluation of the 

impact of these emissions to visibility 

reduction to the next round of visibility 

plans, covering 2018 to 2028. 

The island of St. John has an 

inventory that is complete for 

particulate matter, sulfur oxides and 

nitrogen oxides. The compiled 

inventory for other portions of the 

Virgin Islands included major point 

sources, since these would have the 

greatest influence on visibility on St. 

John. The proposed FIP has calculated 

changes in emissions from two source 

groups in the Virgin Islands: The 

HOVENSA refinery on St. Croix and 

marine vessels that travel to and from 

St. John. Reasonable controls are not 

available for other sources in the Virgin 

Islands because their impact on 

visibility in the National Park is very 

small or the prospective emission 

reductions are not cost effective based 

on the EPA’s guidelines. While other 

sources, like motor vehicles, may have 

fewer emissions by 2018, the EPA has 

not calculated changes in emissions 

because the Islands’ remote location 

makes national defaults for changes like 

vehicle turnover problematic for 

estimating future emissions in the 

Virgin Islands. 

For the proposed Haze FIP for the 

Virgin Islands, the official inventory 

will be the inventory for the island of 

St. John. Reductions by 2018 are from 

the use of lower sulfur fuels and 

nitrogen oxide controls on marine 

vessels as part of the Emissions Control 

Area (ECA) covering the portions of the 

United States in the Caribbean. 

TABLE 2—SULFUR OXIDES EMISSIONS FROM POINT, AREA AND MOBILE SOURCES ON ST. JOHN, VIRGIN ISLANDS

[Tons per year] 

Source sector Baseline 2002 

2018 

(With measures 

for RPG) 

Point ............................................................................................................................................................. 43.11 43.11 

Area ............................................................................................................................................................. 0.05 0.05 

Non-Road Mobile ......................................................................................................................................... 17.89 17.89 

On-Road Mobile ........................................................................................................................................... 1.61 1.61 

Marine Vessels ............................................................................................................................................ 94.06 14.11 

Total ...................................................................................................................................................... 156.72 76.77 

TABLE 3—NITROGEN OXIDE EMISSIONS FROM POINT, AREA AND MOBILE SOURCES ON ST. JOHN, VIRGIN ISLANDS

[Tons per year] 

Source sector Baseline 2002 

2018 

(With measures 

for RPG) 

Point ............................................................................................................................................................. 477.66 477.66 

Area ............................................................................................................................................................. 3.69 3.69 

Non-Road Mobile ......................................................................................................................................... 2.07 2.07 

On-Road Mobile ........................................................................................................................................... 25.03 25.03 

Marine Vessels ............................................................................................................................................ 318.23 63.65 

Total ...................................................................................................................................................... 826.68 572.1 

TABLE 4—DIRECT EMISSIONS OF PARTICULATE MATTER FROM POINT, AREA AND MOBILE SOURCES ON ST. JOHN, VIRGIN

ISLANDS

[Tons per year] 

Source sector Baseline 2002 

2018 

(With measures 

for RPG) 

Point ............................................................................................................................................................. 34.33 34.33 

Area ............................................................................................................................................................. 38.32 38.32 

Non-Road Mobile ......................................................................................................................................... 1.93 1.93 

On-Road Mobile ........................................................................................................................................... 0.73 0.73 

Marine Vessels ............................................................................................................................................ 8.57 1.28 

Total ...................................................................................................................................................... 83.88 76.59 

Other emission changes in the FIP are 

from the effects of the consent decree 

with HOVENSA, whose impact is in the 

following table: 


erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 122 / Monday, June 25, 2012 / Proposed Rules 37849 

TABLE 5—EMISSIONS FROM HOVENSA IN TONS PER YEAR

Sulfur oxides Nitrogen oxides Particulate 

matter 

HOVENSA Base 2002 ............................................................................................... 12,778 26,362 2,207 

HOVENSA Future 2018 ............................................................................................. 9,318 21,331 2,192 

EPA used emission changes in Tables 

2 through 5 with air quality models to 

project that 2018 visibility on the 20% 

worst days in the Virgin Islands 

National Park Class I area would be 

improved by 0.16 dv based on 

application of these controls. The 

uniform rate of progress goal is 1.48 dv 

for the period ending in 2018. As a 

result, these measures are likely to fall 

short of achieving the reasonable 

progress goal for 2018 in the Virgin 

Islands National Park. However, since a 

large portion of the reductions needed 

to meet the calculated background 

visibility in 2064 includes the impact of 

Saharan Dust and sea salt, which cannot 

be controlled under this program, the 

difficulty of achieving interim 

reasonable progress goals is apparent. 

EPA proposes that the reasonable 

measures will help improve visibility in 

the Virgin Islands National Park Class I 

area for the first round of the regional 

haze plan for the Virgin Islands. 

2. Reasonable Progress Goals 

In determining if reasonable progress 

is being made, states, or EPA in the case 

of this FIP, are required to consider the 

following factors established in section 

169A of the Act 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 the Virgin Islands, 

though, a different method of 

determining reasonable progress is 

required. As explained in this proposal, 

the dominant cause of visibility 

impairment at the Virgin Islands’ Class 

I area is international transport of 

Saharan Dust and volcanic ash from 

Montserrat. However, because the 

Saharan Dust and volcanic eruptions 

vary greatly from year to year with no 

discernible pattern, it is impossible to 

predict future emissions. As a result, 

there is little value in attempting to 

model visibility at the Class I area in 

2018. The goal of this FIP therefore is 

to evaluate and remedy the causes of 

reduced visibility due to human 

sources. 

i. Identification of Pollutants for 

Reasonable Progress 

EPA has evaluated the particulate 

pollutants (ammonium sulfate, 

ammonium nitrate, organic carbon (OC), 

elemental carbon (EC), fine soil, coarse 

mass (CM), and sea salt) that contribute 

to visibility impairment at the Virgin 

Islands Class I Federal area. The largest 

contributor to haze in the Virgin Islands 

is coarse mass where all particles are 

larger than 2.5 microns, which accounts 

for 36 percent of total interference with 

visibility on the twenty percent haziest 

days at the Virgin Islands National Park. 

The next largest contributor is sea salt 

at 20 percent; then sulfate at 19 percent; 

soils were the fourth largest contributor 

at 13 percent. 

There is nothing to be done about the 

portion of light extinction attributable to 

sea salt, as it is entirely from sea spray 

generated by wave action and winds. 

The days with the highest contributions 

to reduced visibility have the highest 

amounts of coarse particulates and fine 

soil, which indicate the presence of 

Saharan Dust. The sources of coarse 

mass are difficult to document because 

of emission inventory limitations 

associated with natural sources 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. Similarly, because fine soil 

appears to be primarily attributable to 

international transport of Saharan Dust, 

EPA has determined that it is not 

reasonable in this planning period to 

recommend emission control measures 

for fine soil. Contributions of coarse 

mass and fine soil to visibility 

impairment, and their emissions 

sources, and potential control measures, 

should be addressed in future Regional 

Haze plan updates. Based on the above 

evaluation, EPA has determined that the 

first Regional Haze Plan RP evaluation 

should focus primarily on significant 

human sources of SO2 (sulfate 

precursor) and NOX (nitrate precursor). 

ii. Determining Reasonable Progress 

Through Island-Specific Emissions 

Inventories 

Due to the difficulty of modeling to 

project visibility at the Virgin Islands 

Class I area in 2018, EPA is focusing its 

reasonable progress analysis on 

reducing anthropogenic emissions of 

visibility-impairing pollution. The key 

anthropogenic pollutants of concern are 

SO2, PM, and NOX. 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 inventory for the 

island of St. John, where the Class I area 

is located, and other major sources 

located in the Virgin Islands. As 

discussed in this proposal, our analysis 

indicates that most emissions do not 

significantly impair visibility at the 

Class I areas due to the prevailing 

winds. Prevailing winds at St. John are 

from the east to the west. The Class I 

area is east and north of St. Thomas and 

St. Croix, respectively. 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 even very large sources in 

the Virgin Islands have relatively small 

visibility impacts on the Class I area. 

In developing the 2018 reasonable 

progress goal, and determining emission 

reductions that would help reduce 

emissions that impair visibility, EPA 

reviewed present and potential actions 

that would reduce visibility-impairing 

emissions between 2000 and 2018. 

Based on EPA’s review, we are 

proposing to use the following 

reasonable measures to improve 


erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
37850 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 122 / Monday, June 25, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

5As described above, there is acceptable 

modeling for point sources for the BART and the 

reasonable progress analysis for point sources. 

visibility in the Virgin Islands National 

Park Class I area: 

• U.S. Caribbean Emission Control 

Area for use of lower-sulfur oil in ocean 

vessels and large ships. 

• Emission reductions from the 

HOVENSA Consent Decree. 

U.S. Caribbean Emission Control Area 

The United States Government, 

together with Canada and France, 

established the North America Emission 

Control Area (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. 

The ECA was amended to include the 

designated waters around Puerto Rico 

and the U.S. Virgin Islands. This ECA 

will require use of lower sulfur fuels in 

ships operating within 50 nautical miles 

from the territorial sea baselines of the 

included islands. Beginning in 2015, 

fuel used by all vessels operating in 

these areas cannot exceed 0.1 percent 

fuel sulfur (1,000 ppm). This 

requirement is expected to reduce PM 

and SOX emissions by more than 85 

percent. Beginning in 2016, new engines 

on vessels operating in these areas must 

use emission controls that achieve an 80 

percent reduction in NOX emissions. 

While these reductions are not 

enforceable as part of this FIP, EPA 

expects them to occur and they will be 

included in the reductions expected in 

the period through 2018. 

HOVENSA Consent Decree 

As discussed in greater detail in the 

section which discusses the BART 

determinations, HOVENSA, L.L.C. 

(HOVENSA) is a petroleum refinery 

located in St. Croix. In June 2011, EPA 

and HOVENSA entered into a Consent 

Decree (CD) to resolve alleged Clean Air 

Act violations at the refinery. 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 are 

expected to reduce emissions of NOX by 

5,031 tons per year (tpy) and SO2 by 

3,460 tpy. 

In January 2012, HOVENSA 

announced the refinery would shut 

down operations and become an oil 

storage terminal. At this time, 

HOVENSA has retained its air permits 

and remains subject to the CD. Since 

HOVENSA has retained its permits, EPA 

proposes to determine the emission 

limitations, pollution controls, 

schedules for compliance, reporting, 

and recordkeeping provisions of the 

HOVENSA CD constitute a long term 

strategy and, therefore, can be used to 

address the reasonable progress 

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

While EPA’s modeling analysis to 

estimate the visibility impact of 

currently operating individual sources 

of pollution indicates that even very 

large sources in the Virgin Islands have 

relatively small visibility impacts on the 

Class I area, HOVENSA’s modeled 

impact of more than 1 deciview 

indicates that HOVENSA impairs 

visibility in the Class I area on St. John, 

which leads us to determine that the 

HOVENSA CD contains existing 

reasonable measures that can assist in 

improving visibility at the Class I area. 

Should the existing federally 

enforceable HOVENSA CD be modified, 

EPA will reevaluate, and if necessary, 

revise the FIP after public notice and 

comment. 

In addition, EPA is proposing to 

require HOVENSA to notify EPA 60 

days in advance of startup and 

resumption of operation of refinery 

process units at the HOVENSA, St. 

Croix, Virgin Islands facility. EPA 

proposes that HOVENSA also provide a 

complete analysis of reasonable 

measures, consistent with EPA’s 

Regional Haze requirements, if it 

resumes refinery operations. 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). 

EPA proposes to determine that these 

measures are the reasonably available 

measures that can assist in improving 

visibility in the Virgin Islands National 

Park Class I area. 

iii. 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 by 2018 due to 

changes in the emission inventory for 

all sources (shipping, mobile sources, 

point sources, etc.) in the Virgin 

Islands.5 In the absence of reliable 

visibility modeling for 2018, EPA is 

using the island-specific inventories and 

a post-control emission inventory to 

judge whether reasonable progress is 

being made. 

In order to show how the future 

emission changes may affect the aerosol 

levels in the Virgin Islands National 

Park Class I area, EPA estimated the 

effect that the changes in the islandspecific inventories for NOX, SO2 and 

PM will have on the visibility in the 

National Park. The details of this 

analysis are discussed in the FIP and the 

modeling is described in the 

contractor’s report in the Docket. 

At the Virgin Islands National Park, 

the projected visibility for 2018 post 

control case is slightly better due to the 

emission reductions anticipated by EPA. 

Visibility on the worst twenty percent 

days is improved by 0.16 dv and there 

is no change in visibility on the twenty 

percent best days. 

iv. Visibility Improvement Compared to 

URP 

The amount of improvement needed 

to achieve the URP for 2018 at the 

Virgin Islands National Park is 1.46 dv. 

Based on the projections of visibility, 

discussed above, the amount of 

improvement by 2018 would be 0.16 dv. 

Therefore, the URP will not be met in 

the Virgin Islands National Park. Based 

on our decision on the lack of other 

reasonable emission controls available 

for the Regional Haze FIP, we propose 

to determine that the amount of controls 

EPA is anticipating by 2018 is the 

reasonable progress that can be attained 

in the Virgin Islands. 

v. 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). Since the 

Virgin Islands are about 1,200 miles 

from the next nearest Class I area—the 

Everglades in Florida—we propose to 

determine that emissions from the 

Virgin Islands are not reasonably 

anticipated to contribute to visibility 

impairment in any mandatory Class I 

Federal area located in another state or 

states. Because of the distance from the 

continental United States and the lack 

of impact modeled from a representative 

major source in Puerto Rico, we also 

propose to determine that no emissions 

from any other state are reasonably 

anticipated to contribute to visibility 

impairment in the Virgin Islands’ 

mandatory Class I Federal area. 

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). Since the Virgin Islands was 

not included in any regional planning 

organizations, there is no obligation for 


erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 122 / Monday, June 25, 2012 / Proposed Rules 37851 

emission reductions on the part of the 

Virgin Islands. Therefore, we propose to 

determine that no additional emissions 

reductions are necessary in the Virgin 

Islands to meet the progress goal for any 

mandatory Class I Federal area outside 

of the Virgin Islands. 

vi. 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. 

vii. Emissions Reductions Due to 

Ongoing Air Pollution Programs 

Our LTS incorporates emission 

reductions due to ongoing air pollution 

control programs. 

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. 

Among other things, the PSD permit 

program is designed to protect air 

quality and visibility in Class I Areas by 

requiring best available control 

technology and involving the public in 

permit decisions. EPA has promulgated 

a PSD FIP for the Virgin Islands to 

address the Act’s PSD requirements (40 

CFR 52.2779(b)). EPA does new source 

permitting for the Virgin Islands, 

according to the procedures in the PSD 

FIP, including implementing 

requirements for input from the relevant 

FLM and considering potential visibility 

impacts to Class I areas from new major 

stationary sources or major 

modifications of existing major 

stationary sources. See 40 CFR 

52.21(p)(1). 

Reasonably Attributable Visibility 

Impairment Rules 

EPA has promulgated a FIP for the 

Virgin Islands, which incorporates the 

provisions of 40 CFR 52.26, 52.29, to 

address RAVI in the Virgin Islands. See 

40 CFR 52.2781. As part of its review of 

new sources for impairment of visibility 

at the Class I area in the Virgin Islands, 

EPA is responsible for determining if 

sources have a reasonably attributable 

impairment to visibility in the Class I 

area. 

On-going Implementation of Federal 

Mobile Source Rules 

Mobile source NOX and SO2

emissions are expected to decrease in 

Virgin Islands from 2000 to 2018, due to 

several existing Federal mobile source 

regulations. However, we have not 

quantified these reductions due to 

uncertainties in the composition of the 

fleet, use of fuels and vehicle turnover, 

as compared to EPA’s assumptions in 

our mobile emissions models. 

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, SO2, particulate 

matter (PM10 and PM2.5 from engine 

exhaust and as fugitive dust from 

roadways and material handling), and 

primary organic aerosols. 

The VIDPNR regulates emissions of 

air pollutants, including construction 

emissions, and EPA will work with the 

VIDPNR to determine if local 

regulations and enforcement can help 

reduce pollutants that contribute to 

regional haze in the National Park. 

TABLE 6—REASONABLE PROGRESS GOALS AND PROJECTED FUTURE VISIBILITY FOR THE VIRGIN ISLANDS NATIONAL PARK

Baseline visibility 

(2000–2004) 

Natural 

background 

conditions for 

2064 

Improvement to 

reach reasonable 

progress goal for 

2018 

2018 Projected 

improvement 

20% Worst Days .............................................................................. 17.02 10.68 1.48 0.16 

20% Best Days ................................................................................ 8.54 4.41 0.96 0.00 

(All values expressed as deciviews—lower deciviews means better visibility.) 

3. BART 

BART is an element of EPA’s LTS, as 

well as a requirement to evaluate 

controls for older sources that affect 

Class I areas, for the first 

implementation period. The BART 

regional haze requirement consists of 

three steps: (a) Identification of all the 

BART-eligible sources; (b) an 

assessment of whether the BARTeligible sources are subject to BART; 

and (c) the determination of the BART 

controls. 

i. BART-Eligible Sources in the Virgin 

Islands 

The first component of a BART 

evaluation is to identify all the BART 

eligible sources within the United States 

Virgin Islands (‘‘Virgin Islands’’ or 

‘‘Territory’’). While the Virgin Islands’ 

Department of Planning and Natural 

Resources (VIDPNR), the Territory’s 

environmental agency, did not submit a 

SIP, EPA’s evaluation process of 

identifying BART-eligible sources 

included a review of Title V permits, a 

review of Title V applications received 

from VIDPNR, and direct 

communications with HOVENSA, LLC, 

one of the BART-eligible sources. To 

establish which facilities are BARTeligible, EPA evaluated eligibility 

criteria for combustion and other 

process units at the following eight 

sources throughout the Territory: 

• HOVENSA, LLC (St. Croix) 

• Three of the Virgin Islands Water 

and Power Authority (VI WAPA) 

facilities—one on each of the islands 

(St. Croix, St. Thomas and St. John) 

• St. Croix Renaissance Group, LLLP 

(St. Croix) 

• Wyndham Sugar Bay Beach Club & 

Resort (St. Thomas) 

• Divi Carina Bay Hotel (St. Croix) 

• Buccaneer Hotel (St. Croix) 

EPA identified three of the eight 

sources, including multiple combustion 

or process units at each source, as 

BART-eligible. The three BART-eligible 

sources identified by EPA as potentially 

impacting the Class I area, summarized 

in Table 7, met the following criteria to 

be classified as BART-eligible: 


erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
37852 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 122 / Monday, June 25, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

• One or more emissions units at the 

facility are within one of the 26 

categories listed in the BART Guidelines 

(70 FR 39104, 39158; July 6, 2005); 

• The emission unit(s) began 

operation after August 6, 1962, and were 

still in existence on August 7, 1977; 

• Potential emissions of SO2, NOX, 

and PM10 from subject units are 250 

tons or more per year. 

These criteria are in section 

169A(b)(2)(A) of the Act, codified in 40 

CFR part 51, Appendix Y. None of the 

remaining five sources met these criteria 

and therefore were removed from 

consideration for BART review. 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 


erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1EP25JN12.008</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 122 / Monday, June 25, 2012 / Proposed Rules 37853 

6Note 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. 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–C 

The BART Guidelines recommend 

addressing SO2, NOX, and PM10 as 

visibility-impairment pollutants. The 

Guidelines note that states can decide 

whether to evaluate VOC or ammonia 

emissions. EPA is not developing 

additional strategies for VOC or 

ammonia emissions in its FIP. EPA 

proposes to determine that the lack of 

tools available to estimate emissions 

and subsequently model VOC and 

ammonia effects on visibility inhibits 

EPA from addressing BART for these 

pollutants and that SO2, NOX, PM10, and 

PM2.5 are the pollutants reasonably 

anticipated to contribute to visibility 

impairment to target under BART. 

ii. Sources Subject to BART 

The second component of the BART 

evaluation is to identify those BART 

eligible sources that may reasonably be 

anticipated to cause or contribute to 

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 a source may not 

reasonably be anticipated to cause or 

contribute to any visibility impairment 

in a Class I area. Consistent with the 

BART Guidelines, the EPA, through the 

use of a contractor, performed 

dispersion modeling to assess the extent 

of each BART-eligible source’s 

contribution to visibility impairment at 

the Class I area and we propose to rely 

on that modeling described below. 

Modeling Methodology 

The BART Guidelines provide that we 

may use the CALPUFF 6 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 also recommend that a 

modeling protocol be developed for 

making individual source attributions, 

which in this case is the EPA-approved 

workplan developed by the contractor. 

To determine whether each BARTeligible source has a significant impact 

on visibility, we propose to use the 

CALPUFF modeling to estimate daily 

visibility impacts above estimated 

natural conditions at the Class I area, 

which is the Virgin Islands National 

Park, covering much of St. John as well 

as Hassel Island near St. Thomas. There 

are no other Class I areas within 300 

kilometers (km) of any BART-eligible 

facility in the Virgin Islands. Emissions 

were modeled with four years worth of 

meteorological data, from 2007 through 

2010. We used these years because more 

meteorological data were available and 

the output provided from the modeling 

was closer to the actual monitored data 

than the period 2001 to 2004. The 

modeling evaluated the impact of three 

BART sources on the Class I area. EPA 

believes that this modeling provides a 

reasonable estimate of daily visibility 

impacts above estimated natural 

conditions at the 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. 

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 6, 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.’’ Id. The 

Guidelines affirm that states and EPA 

are free to use a lower threshold if it can 

be concluded that the location of a large 

number of BART-eligible sources in 

proximity to a Class I area justifies this 

approach. 

EPA proposes to follow the BART 

Guidelines for determining which 

sources are subject to BART for the 

Virgin Islands FIP. EPA took into 

consideration that the Virgin Islands 

BART sources only affect one Class I 

area, so numerous small impacts at 

many Class I areas will not occur. With 

only three BART sources, the situation 

is much different than in the eastern 

United States where over one hundred 

sources can have overlapping plumes 

that make a larger impact on several 

Class I areas (70 FR 39121, July 6, 2005). 

As shown in Table 8, EPA proposes to 

exempt two of the three BART-eligible 

sources in the Territory from further 

review under the BART requirements. 

The visibility impacts attributable to 

each of the VIWAPA sources is very low 

(at or less than 0.1 deciviews). Our 

proposed approach to contribution is to 

capture any source responsible for a 

major visibility impact, while excluding 

other sources with very small impacts. 

Sources Identified by EPA as BART– 

Eligible and Subject to BART 

The results of the CALPUFF modeling 

are summarized in Table 8. EPA is 

proposing that the VIWAPA facilities 

not be subject to BART because the 

demonstrated impacts are very low at all 

Class I area receptors. EPA proposes that 

the HOVENSA facility is subject to 

BART because of the high demonstrated 

impacts at receptors in the Class I area. 

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 

Average 4-year 

98th percentile 

visibility impact 

(deciviews) 

Subject to BART? 

VI WAPA .................................................................. St. John .................................................................... 0.06 No. 

St Thomas ................................................................ Hassel Island, St. Thomas ....................................... 0.04 


erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
37854 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 122 / Monday, June 25, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

7See Appendix A of the CD for a list of affected 

sources: heaters and boilers greater than 40 mm 

BTU/hour, generating turbines and compressor 

engines. 

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

Facility and location Class I area and locations of modeling receptor 

Average 4-year 

98th percentile 

visibility impact 

(deciviews) 

Subject to BART? 

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

St. Croix .................................................................... Hassel Island, St. Thomas ....................................... 0.10 

HOVENSA ................................................................ St. John .................................................................... 1.91 Yes. 

St. Croix .................................................................... Hassel Island, St. Thomas ....................................... 2.35 

iii. BART Evaluations for Sources 

Identified as Subject to BART by EPA 

The third and final component of a 

BART evaluation is making BART 

determinations for all BART subject 

sources. In making BART 

determinations, section 169A(g)(2) of 

the Act 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 that may 

reasonably be anticipated to result from 

the use of such technology. However, a 

source that implements the maximum 

feasible level of control for its emissions 

has met the BART requirements, and no 

further analysis is needed. Conversely, a 

source that limits its emissions via an 

enforceable permit limit, or shuts down 

and surrenders its permits, no longer 

needs to be subject to BART review. 

EPA determined that HOVENSA is 

subject to BART review. The following 

summarizes EPA’s BART analyses and 

evaluation for each of the HOVENSA 

units listed in Table 7 that are subject 

to BART. For further details the reader 

is referred to EPA’s BART analyses 

contained in the FIP, located in the 

docket for this proposal at EPA’s Web 

site at www.regulations.gov. 

BART Determinations for HOVENSA 

a. Facility Description and Current 

Status 

HOVENSA is a petroleum refinery 

located in St. Croix, U.S. Virgin Islands. 

Operations began in 1966 but in October 

1998, the Amerada Hess Corporation 

and Petroleos de Venezuela, S.A. 

formed a new corporation, HOVENSA, 

L.L.C. (HOVENSA) which acquired 

ownership and operational control of 

the St. Croix refinery. HOVENSA has a 

design capacity of 545,000 barrels of 

crude oil per day, the majority of which 

is received from Venezuela. 

In June 2011, EPA and the U.S. 

Department of Justice (DOJ) entered into 

a consent decree (CD) requiring 

HOVENSA to pay a civil penalty and 

requiring the implementation of new 

pollution controls that would help 

protect the public health and resolve 

alleged Clean Air Act violations at the 

St. Croix refinery. The alleged violations 

cover emissions of SO2, NOX, VOCs and 

benzene from the Fluidized Catalytic 

Cracking Unit (FCCU), refinery heaters, 

boilers, generating combustion turbines, 

compressor engines, flares, sulfur 

recovery units and process units related 

to VOC and benzene emissions. EPA 

estimates that for the affected process 

heaters, boilers, generating turbines, and 

compressor engines, the cumulative 

reduction in NOX emissions, 

attributable to the CD, which are 

defined there as ‘‘Qualifying Controls’’ 

are as follows: 1,079 tpy by June 2015, 

3,663 tpy by June 2016 and 4,744 tpy by 

June 2019.7 Also, EPA estimates that for 

the affected FCCU, FCCU catalytic 

regenerator, boilers, process heaters, 

generating combustion turbines, sulfur 

recovery plants, and flares, the 

reduction in SO2 emissions, attributable 

to the CD is 3,460 tpy. The CD requires 

SO2 reductions from the flares within 

the 2018–2021 timeframe whereas SO2

reductions for other units are to be 

implemented within the period of 2011– 

2014. A copy of the CD is included in 

the Docket. For further information the 

reader is referred to http://www.epa.gov/ 

compliance/resources/cases/civil/caa/ 

hovensa.html. 

On January 18, 2012, HOVENSA 

announced the refinery on St. Croix 

would shut down operations and 

become an oil storage terminal. 

Currently, HOVENSA has shutdown all 

refinery operations except for some 

process unit cleanout operations. 

HOVENSA is still finalizing 

intermediate and long term plans for 

operation of the bulk storage terminal to 

determine what utilities will continue to 

be needed. In the meantime, HOVENSA 

has retained its air permits and remains 

subject to the CD. Since HOVENSA has 

retained its permits, EPA evaluated 

BART for HOVENSA’s BART-eligible 

sources. 

b. BART Analysis 

Eight Boilers 

HOVENSA owns and operates nine 

steam boilers that are capable of 

combusting either refinery fuel gas 

(RFG) or No. 6 fuel oil and the heat 

input to the boilers is in the range of 205 

to 405 mm BTU/hr. One of the boilers 

(Boiler 10) was constructed in 1999 and 

therefore is not BART-eligible. EPA has 

determined there are eight boilers 

subject to BART. SO2 emissions are 

controlled by a permit limiting the 

sulfur content of No. 6 fuel oil to 0.50% 

or 1.0% depending upon wind 

conditions as defined in the permit. In 

addition, the June 2011 CD will lower 

SO2 emissions by requiring that the 

combustion of RFG by the boilers, 

containing hydrogen sulfide (H2S), meet 

the requirements of the New Source 

Performance Standards (NSPS) part 60, 

Subparts J and Ja. The June 2011 CD 

requires the facility to lower the sulfur 

content of No. 6 fuel oil to 0.55% 

maximum, 0.50% annually, and to a 

low limit of 0.30% depending upon 

wind conditions as defined in the CD. 

There are no existing controls for NOX

and PM emissions from the BARTeligible boilers. 

For control of SO2, NOX and PM 

emissions, based upon EPA’s analysis, 

EPA is proposing that current 

operations represent BART for each of 

the boilers subject to BART. For SO2

and PM control, EPA’s contractor 

evaluated Duct Injection and Fabric 

Filters (DIFF) using lime as the alkaline 

reagent. DIFF is a semi-wet flue gas 

desulfurization (FGD) process. The 

fabric filter is the PM control device. 

EPA has determined that the DIFF 

controls evaluated for the boilers subject 

to BART are not cost effective. EPA 

determined that the cost effectiveness 

for the eight boilers subject to BART 

varied from about $19,100 to $39,600 

per ton of SO2 and PM reduced, which 

is too costly to be cost effective per ton 

of reduced emissions. In addition, it is 

EPA’s opinion that if maximum controls 

had been evaluated, such as lime or 


erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 122 / Monday, June 25, 2012 / Proposed Rules 37855 

limestone wet FGD, the cost 

effectiveness would be even higher than 

for the DIFF controls evaluated. 

Therefore, EPA determines that for SO2

and PM controls, current operation is 

considered as BART. 

For control of NOX emissions, EPA’s 

contractor evaluated selective noncatalytic reduction (SNCR) using 

ammonia as the reagent. EPA has 

determined that implementation of 

SNCR controls for boilers subject to 

BART are cost effective. The actual cost 

effectiveness for the boilers is in the 

range of about $710 to $860 per ton of 

NOX removed. As summarized in Table 

8, the visibility impact (98th percentile, 

4 year average) of all BART-eligible 

sources from HOVENSA in the Class I 

area at St. John is 1.91 dv for all 

pollutants. EPA further analyzed the 

contribution of various chemical species 

and components on the visibility 

impacts and has established that the 

contribution of NOX compounds is 

about 5% which would be equivalent to 

0.09 dv visibility impact at St. John from 

all HOVENSA units subject to BART, 

including the 8 boilers subject to BART. 

Since the visibility impact due to NOX

emissions from all HOVENSA units 

subject to BART is only about 0.09 dv, 

EPA proposes that the implementation 

of any NOX controls (even SNCR or 

selective catalytic reduction (SCR)) 

would not have any significant visibility 

impact on the Class I area in the Virgin 

Islands and therefore EPA proposes to 

determine that current operation of the 

boilers subject to BART is considered 

BART for controlling NOX emissions. 

Also, as discussed in the Reasonable 

Progress Goals section, EPA is 

proposing to require HOVENSA to 

provide a complete analysis of 

reasonable measures, if it resumes 

refinery operations. 

Combustion Turbines 

HOVENSA owns and operates eleven 

combustion turbines that are capable of 

combusting two or more of the 

following fuel combinations: refinery 

fuel gas (RFG), liquefied petroleum gas 

(LPG) and distillate oil. Two of the 

turbines were constructed in 1993 and 

2009 and are therefore not BARTeligible. EPA has determined nine 

turbines are subject to BART. SO2

emissions are controlled by limiting the 

fuel sulfur content as follows: distillate 

oil has a permit sulfur limit of 0.20%; 

LPG does not contain any sulfur; RFG 

sulfur content will be limited by the CD 

that requires the combustion of RFG 

with limits on the H2S content in 

accordance with the NSPS requirements 

at subpart J or Ja. For NOX, only one 

turbine has implemented control 

technology (steam injection). For PM, 

none of the turbines subject to BART 

have any controls. 

For control of SO2, NOX and PM 

emissions, based upon EPA’s analysis, 

EPA is proposing that current 

operations represent BART for each of 

the nine combustion turbines subject to 

BART. For SO2 and PM control, as with 

the boilers discussed above, EPA’s 

contractor evaluated Duct Injection and 

Fabric Filters (DIFF) using lime as the 

alkaline reagent. Based upon this 

analysis, EPA has determined that the 

DIFF controls evaluated for the nine 

combustion turbines are not cost 

effective. EPA determined that the cost 

effectiveness for the nine combustion 

turbines varied from about $122,300 (8 

turbines) to $359,186 (1 turbine) per ton 

of SO2 and PM reduced. The cost 

effectiveness values for the combustion 

turbines are much higher than for the 

boilers because the SO2 emissions from 

the boilers are much higher (by a factor 

of 2 to 4 times) than from the turbines. 

Therefore, EPA determines that for SO2

and PM controls, current operation is 

considered as BART. 

For control of NOX emissions from the 

turbines (as discussed above for the 

boilers) EPA’s contractor evaluated 

selective non-catalytic reduction (SNCR) 

using ammonia as the reagent. EPA has 

determined, except for one turbine, that 

implementation of SNCR controls for 

eight turbines are cost effective. The 

actual cost effectiveness for the turbines 

is from about $1,750 to $1,890 per ton 

of NOX removed. The one turbine where 

control is not cost effectiveness had a 

value of $9,500/ton, because the NOX

emissions are much lower due to NOX

controls installed on the turbine. Even 

though controls on eight of the nine 

turbines are cost effective, EPA has 

determined, for the same reasons 

discussed above for the boilers, that the 

visibility impact due to NOX emissions 

is only about 0.09 dv from HOVENSA 

units subject to BART, and therefore the 

implementation of any new NOX

controls (even SNCR or SCR) would not 

have any significant visibility impact on 

the Class I area in the Virgin Islands. 

Therefore, EPA is determining that 

current operations of the nine turbines 

subject to BART are considered BART 

for controlling NOX emissions. 

Process Heaters 

HOVENSA owns seventy process 

heaters of which twenty-one were shut 

down in early 2011. Of the seventy 

heaters, EPA has determined that sixtyfour are subject to BART whereas the 

remaining six heaters were constructed 

after 1977 and are therefore not BARTeligible. Of the sixty-four process 

heaters subject to BART, fifteen are 

capable of combusting either RFG or No. 

6 fuel oil whereas the remaining fortynine heaters combust only RFG. 

For the fifteen heaters capable of 

combusting No. 6 fuel oil, SO2

emissions are controlled by permits 

limiting the sulfur content of No. 6 fuel 

oil to 0.50% or 1.0%. The June 2011 CD 

provides for lowering SO2 emissions by 

establishing lower sulfur content of No. 

6 fuel oil. In addition, the CD requires 

process heaters to meet the NSPS at part 

60, either subpart J or Ja. None of the 

process heaters subject to BART have 

any controls for either NOX or PM. 

For control of SO2, NOX and PM 

emissions, based upon EPA’s analysis, 

EPA is proposing that current 

operations represent BART for each of 

the sixty-four process heaters subject to 

BART. Although EPA’s contractor 

determined cost effectiveness for only 

the boilers and combustion turbines, 

EPA has concluded that, for control of 

SO2, NOX and PM, there is sufficient 

information to make a determination 

that current operation represents BART 

for each of the process heaters subject to 

BART. For the SO2 and PM BART 

determination, EPA notes that the SO2

emissions, heat input and fuel type for 

each of the six largest process heaters is 

similar to that of most of the boilers 

which EPA determined BART control 

was not cost effective. It is EPA’s 

judgment from this size comparison 

between the boilers and the six largest 

heaters that the cost effectiveness for the 

process heaters would be less than the 

cost effectiveness for the boilers, but 

still would result in determining 

additional controls as not being cost 

effective. The great majority of the 

remainder of the process heaters 

combust only RFG, have a smaller heat 

input (each by a factor of about 2.75 

average) and have lower SO2 emissions 

(each by a factor of about 7.8 on average) 

than the six larger heaters. Based upon 

this comparison, EPA would expect that 

controls for the remaining smaller 

process heaters will not be cost 

effective. Therefore, for SO2 and PM 

emissions, EPA proposes to determine 

that the controls for all the process 

heaters subject to BART are not cost 

effective and that current operation is 

considered BART. 

As discussed above for the boilers and 

combustion turbines, EPA determined 

that implementation of controls on NOX

emissions from all BART units at 

HOVENSA have an insignificant 

visibility impact on the Class I area and 

EPA is proposing to determine this is 

also true for the process heaters. 

Therefore EPA proposes that current 

operation of the process heaters subject 


erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
37856 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 122 / Monday, June 25, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

to BART is considered as BART for 

controlling NOX emissions. 

Other Significant HOVENSA Emission 

Units Subject to BART 

HOVENSA owns and operates many 

other emission units that are subject to 

BART, including reciprocating gas 

compressors, tail gas treatment units, 

tail gas incinerators, flares, water intake 

pumps and a desalination water pump. 

For many of these units, actual 

emissions are negligible and PTE 

emissions are small. Also, the June 2011 

CD contains additional compliance 

requirements for these units, such as 

meeting the NSPS emission limits under 

part 60 subparts J or Ja. 

In all cases, EPA is proposing that 

current operations represent BART 

control for SO2, NOX and PM emissions 

for each of these sources subject to 

BART. It is EPA’s judgment that any 

detailed cost analysis would conclude 

that implementation of any additional 

control technologies for controlling 

emissions of SO2, NOX or PM would 

have resulted in higher cost 

effectiveness values. Also, for the same 

reasons discussed above for the boilers, 

turbines and process heaters, EPA 

proposes that any reduction in NOX

emissions will not significantly improve 

visibility at the Class I area in the Virgin 

Islands and therefore current operation 

of each source subject to BART (without 

any new controls) represents BART for 

controlling NOX emissions. 

The reader is referred to the Regional 

Haze Virgin Islands FIP found in the 

Docket for this proposal, which contains 

a complete description of all of the 

HOVENSA emission units subject to 

BART, and the respective BART 

determinations. 

While there is uncertainty at this time 

regarding future operations at 

HOVENSA, the CD does contain 

emission reductions and emission limit 

requirements which allow us to project 

that should HOVENSA resume 

operating as a refinery, it may be at a 

lower capacity factor, with much less 

sulfur. Although these resulting 

reductions in sulfur emissions are not 

enforceable requirements under this 

action, they suggest that SO2 emissions 

from HOVENSA may decrease even in 

the absence of any BART requirements. 

This analysis also indicates that at least 

some of the units at HOVENSA may be 

coming to the end of their useful life 

and not operate again. 

In summary, EPA’s BART evaluation 

of the boilers, turbines, process heaters, 

and several other source categories that 

are subject to BART has determined that 

no additional control is consistent with 

BART, given the unique situation with 

HOVENSA and the unique visibility 

conditions in the Virgin Islands, and is 

proposing that current operations 

represent BART for HOVENSA. As 

such, EPA’s Federal plan includes the 

establishment of emission limits for 

SO2, NOX and PM equivalent to the 

potential to emit (PTE) for each unit 

subject to BART, as derived from 

HOVENSA’s permit limit conditions. 

EPA’s Federal plan includes these PTE 

limits in the spreadsheets found in the 

Attachments to the FIP. 

C. Consultation With Federal Land 

Managers 

Under section 169A(d) of the Act, we 

are required to consult with the 

appropriate FLM(s) before proposing the 

Virgin Islands Regional Haze FIP. We 

must also include a summary of the 

FLMs’ conclusions and 

recommendations in this notice. EPA 

has consulted informally with the FLMs 

throughout the development of the 

Virgin Islands Regional Haze FIP, 

including periodic updates during 

national teleconferences between EPA 

and the FLMs for the past several years. 

EPA also had two formal discussions 

with the FLMs as part of the 

consultation process. On May 28, 2008, 

EPA Region 2 held a teleconference 

with representatives of the National 

Park Service to brief them about our 

technical findings regarding regional 

haze in the Virgin Islands. Most 

recently, on May 9, 2012, EPA Region 2 

held discussions about our final plans 

for addressing regional haze in the 

Virgin Islands. Following that 

discussion, EPA provided the National 

Park Service with copies of the BART 

analysis for their comments. EPA 

provided the FLMs with a copy of the 

proposed FIP just prior to publishing 

this proposal and acknowledges, as does 

the FLM, that any formal comments by 

the FLMs will be provided to EPA 

during the public comment period for 

this proposal. 

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 

regarding all aspects of the visibility 

protection program and we encourage 

the Virgin Islands government to do the 

same. 

D. Periodic SIP Revisions and Five-Year 

Progress Reports 

EPA commits to coordinate with the 

Virgin Islands government in order to 

revise and submit a regional haze 

implementation plan by July 31, 2018, 

to address the next ten years of progress 

toward the national goal in the Act of 

eliminating manmade haze by 2064, and 

to submit a plan every ten years 

thereafter, in accordance with the 

requirements listed in 40 CFR 51.308(f) 

of the Federal rule for regional haze. 

EPA’s commitment includes continuing 

to consult with the FLMs on the 

implementation of section 51.308 and 

this FIP, including development and 

review of future SIP revisions and fiveyear progress reports, and on the 

implementation of other programs 

affecting the impairment of visibility in 

Class I areas. EPA commits to address 

the following in its Mid-Course Review 

report: address any uncertainties 

encountered during regional haze 

planning process; report on the progress 

of the BART analysis, determinations, 

and implementation; report on whether 

additional potential actions identified in 

its plan or through public comment, 

will be implemented and the status of 

those efforts. The reasonable progress 

report will evaluate the progress made 

towards the RPGs for the Virgin Islands 

National Park. EPA will work with the 

Virgin Islands territorial government to 

prepare and submit updates to the 

emission inventories, a mid-course 

review and a revised plan for the next 

ten-year period starting in 2018. 

E. Coordinating Regional Haze and 

Reasonably Attributable Visibility 

Impairment (RAVI) LTS 

EPA is the reviewing agency for the 

Prevention of Significant Deterioration 

(PSD) program in the Virgin Islands and 

is responsible for preventing new and 

modified sources from significantly 

impacting visibility in the Class I area 

of the Virgin Islands National Park on 

St. John and Hassel Islands. EPA will 

review the impact of proposed sources 

on visibility under 40 CFR 52.26 and 

52.28, by implementing the PSD permit 

requirements for new or modified major 

sources of air pollutants located within 

100 kilometers of the Class I area, or 

within a larger radius on a case-by-case 

basis, in accordance with all applicable 

Federal rules for review of the impacts 

on Class I areas. 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 


erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 122 / Monday, June 25, 2012 / Proposed Rules 37857 

discuss the relevant monitoring 

provisions further below. 

F. Agricultural and Forestry Smoke 

Management Techniques 

40 CFR 51.308(d)(3)(v)(E) requires the 

Virgin Islands to consider smoke 

management techniques for the 

purposes of agricultural and forestry 

management in developing reasonable 

progress goals. Smoke Management 

Programs are only required when smoke 

impacts from fires managed for resource 

benefits contribute significantly to 

regional haze. The results of the 

emissions inventory indicate that 

emissions from agricultural, managed, 

and prescribed burning are very minor 

source categories. It is unlikely that fires 

for agricultural or forestry management 

cause large impacts on visibility in the 

Virgin Islands National Park. On rare 

occasions, smoke from major fires 

degrades the air quality and visibility in 

the Virgin Islands. However, these fires 

are generally unwanted wildfires that 

are not subject to smoke management 

programs. Since there is no evidence of 

agricultural burning contributing to 

haze at Class I areas, we propose to 

determine that no further controls on 

agricultural burning or forest fires are 

reasonable at this time. 

G. Monitoring Strategy and Other 

Implementation Plan Requirements 

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. 

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. Therefore, we 

propose to find that we have satisfied 

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

The primary monitoring network for 

regional haze in the United States is the 

IMPROVE network. There is currently 

one IMPROVE site in the Virgin Islands, 

in the Virgin Islands National Park. 

IMPROVE monitoring data from 2000– 

2004 serves as the baseline for the 

regional haze program, and is relied 

upon in our proposed FIP. Data 

produced by the IMPROVE monitoring 

network are essential for the verification 

of the effects of changes in emissions on 

visibility in Class I areas and will be 

needed for preparing the 5-year progress 

reports and the 10-year SIP revisions, 

each of which relies on analysis of the 

preceding five years of data. EPA will 

continue to encourage the National Park 

Service to continue to operate and 

maintain the monitoring site in the 

Virgin Islands National Park, providing 

support as EPA deems appropriate. 

V. What action is EPA proposing to 

take? 

EPA is proposing 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 proposed FIP 

includes emission reductions to begin 

the reasonable progress needed to 

achieve the overall objective of no manmade interference with visibility by 

2064. The proposed FIP relies on 

emission reductions from existing 

emissions controls and programs 

currently in effect, and proposes to 

require HOVENSA to notify EPA in the 

event it resumes operation of the 

refinery process units and to provide an 

analysis for reasonable measures 

consistent with EPA’s Regional Haze 

Guidelines. Thus, EPA is proposing a 

Regional Haze Plan to satisfy the 

requirements of the Act. EPA is taking 

this action pursuant to CAA sections 

110(a), 301(a), 169A and 169B. EPA is 

soliciting public comments on the 

issues discussed in this document and 

will consider these comments before 

taking final action. 

VI. 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 Virgin Islands Regional Haze 

FIP requires implementation of existing 

emissions controls and emission 

reduction strategies on one facility and 

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 

one facility, 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 Regional 

Haze FIP that EPA is proposing for 


erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
37858 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 122 / Monday, June 25, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

purposes of the regional haze program 

consists of imposing existing Federal 

controls to meet the BART requirement 

for SO2, NOX, and PM emissions on 

specific units at one facility in the 

Virgin Islands. The net result of this FIP 

action is that EPA is proposing existing 

direct 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 

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 Virgin Islands 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 the Virgin Islands 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 

implements specific standards 

established by Congress in statutes. 

However, to the extent this proposed 

rule will limit emissions of SO2, NOX, 

and PM 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 limits 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 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Intergovernmental 

relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Particulate 

matter, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile 

organic compounds. 

Dated: June 14, 2012. 

Judith A. Enck, 

Regional Administrator, Region 2. 

Part 52, chapter I, title 40 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 CCC—Virgin Islands 

2. In § 52.2781, add paragraph (d) to 

read as follows: 

§ 52.2781 Visibility protection. 

* * * * * 

(d) Regional Haze Plan for Virgin 

Islands National Park. 

(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: 

NOX means nitrogen oxides. 

Owner/operator means any person 

who owns, leases, operates, controls, or 

supervises a facility or source identified 

in paragraph (a) 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 

completed product. A single stationary 

source may contain more than one 

process unit, and a process unit may 


erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 122 / Monday, June 25, 2012 / Proposed Rules 37859 

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. 

SO2 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 are 

expected to 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 and four factor analysis. 

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 start up refinery process units 

must include a complete analysis of 

reasonable measures needed to comply 

with regional haze requirements. 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. 2012–15463 Filed 6–22–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R08–OAR–2012–0168; FRL–9692–2] 

Approval and Promulgation of Air 

Quality Implementation Plans; Utah; 

Revisions to UAC Rule 401—Permit: 

New and Modified Sources 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve 

State Implementation Plan (SIP) 

revisions submitted by the State of Utah 

on April 17, 2008 and partially approve 

SIP revisions submitted by the State of 

Utah on September 15, 2006. The 

revisions contain new rules in Utah’s 

Title 307 Rule 401 (Permit: New and 

Modified Sources). The intended effect 

of this action is to propose to approve 

the rules that are consistent with the 

Clean Air Act (CAA.) This action is 

being taken under sections 110 and 112 

of the CAA. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before July 25, 2012. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R08– 

OAR–2012–0168, by one of the 

following methods: 

• www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

• Email: leone.kevin@epa.gov. 

• Fax: (303) 312–6064 (please alert 

the individual listed in FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT if you are faxing 

comments). 

• Mail: Carl Daly, Director, Air 

Program, Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA), Region 8, Mailcode 8P– 

AR, 1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver, 

Colorado 80202–1129. 

• Hand Delivery: Carl Daly, Director, 

Air Program, Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA), Region 8, Mailcode 8P– 

AR, 1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver, 

Colorado 80202–1129. Such deliveries 

are only accepted Monday through 

Friday, 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., excluding 

Federal holidays. Special arrangements 

should be made for deliveries of boxed 

information. 

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

Docket ID No. EPA–R08–OAR–2012– 

0168. 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. For additional information 

about EPA’s public docket visit the EPA 

Docket Center homepage at http:// 

www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm. 

For additional instructions on 

submitting comments, go to Section I. 

General Information of the 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of 

this document. 

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. Publiclyavailable docket materials are available 

either electronically in 

www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at 

the Air Program, Environmental 

Protection Agency (EPA), Region 8, 

1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver, Colorado 

80202–1129. EPA requests that if at all 

possible, 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, 8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m., excluding 

Federal holidays. 


erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1