+(,121/,1(

Citation: 77 Fed. Reg. 31692 2012 

Content downloaded/printed from 

HeinOnline (http://heinonline.org)

Wed Jul 18 16:35:10 2012

-- Your use of this HeinOnline PDF indicates your acceptance

 of HeinOnline's Terms and Conditions of the license

 agreement available at http://heinonline.org/HOL/License

-- The search text of this PDF is generated from 

 uncorrected OCR text.
Federal Register/Vol. 77, No. 103/Tuesday, May 29, 2012/Proposed Rules

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R09-OAR-2012-0345, FRL-9675-3]

Approval and Promulgation of

Implementation Plans; State of Hawaii;

Regional Haze Federal Implementation

Plan

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA) is proposing to

promulgate a Federal Implementation

Plan (FIP) to address regional haze in

the State of Hawaii. EPA proposes to

determine that the FIP meets the

requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA

or "the Act") and EPA's rules

concerning reasonable progress towards

the national goal of preventing any

future and remedying any existing manmade impairment of visibility in

mandatory Class I areas. We are taking

comments on this proposal and plan to

follow with a final action.

DATES: Written comments must be

received at the address below on or

before July 2, 2012.

ADDRESSES: See Supplementary

Information section for further

instructions on where and how to learn

more about this proposal, attend a

public hearing or submit comments.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Gregory Nudd, Air Planning Office

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

Agency Region 9,415-947-4107,

nudd.gregory@epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. General Information

A. Definitions

B. Docket

C. Instructions for Submitting Comments to

EPA

D. Submitting CBI

E. Tips for Preparing Your Comments

F. Public Hearings

II. Background

A. General Description of Regional Haze

B. Visibility Protection Requirements of the

CAA and EPA's Regulations

C. Requirements for Regional Haze

Implementation Plans

1. Determination of Baseline, Natural and

Current Visibility Conditions

2. Determination of Reasonable Progress

Goals

3. Best Available Retrofit Technology

4. Long-Term Strategy

5. Coordination of the Regional Haze SIP

and Reasonably Attributable Visibility

Impairment

6. Monitoring Strategy

7. SIP Revisions and Progress Reports

8. Coordination With Federal Land

Managers

D. Roles of Agencies in Addressing

Regional Haze

E. EPA's Authority To Promulgate a FIP

III. Proposed Implementation Plan To

Address Regional Haze in Hawaii

A. Affected Class I Areas

B. Baseline Visibility, Natural Visibility,

and Uniform Rate of Progress

1. Estimating Natural Visibility Conditions

2. Estimating Baseline Conditions

3. Summary of Baseline and Natural

Conditions

4. Uniform Rate of Progress

5. Contribution Assessment According to

IMPROVE Monitoring Data

C. Hawaii Emissions Inventories

1. Statewide Emissions Inventories

2. Review of the Emissions Inventory for

Completeness and Accuracy

3. Assessment of the Emissions Inventory

D. Sources of Visibility Impairment in

Hawaii Class I Areas

E. Best Available Retrofit Technology

Evaluation

1. Identification of BART-Eligible Sources

2. Identification of Sources Subject to

BART

a. Modeling Methodology

b. Contribution Threshold

c. Sources Identified by EPA as Subject to

BART

3. BART Determination for Kanoelehua

Hill

a. BART for NOx and Particulate Matter

(PM)

b. BART for SO 2

F. Reasonable Progress Goals for Hawaii

1. Identification of Pollutants for

Reasonable Progress

2. Determining Reasonable Progress

Through Island-Specific Emissions

Inventories

3. Four Factor Analysis for NOx Sources on

Maui and the Big Island

4. Four Factor Analysis for S0 2 Emissions

on Maui

a. Mobile Source S0 2 Emissions on Maui

b. Point Source S0 2 Emissions on Maui

c. Conclusion of Reasonable Progress

Analysis for S0 2 Emissions on Maui

5. Four Factor Analysis for S0 2 Emissions

on the Big Island (Hawaii)

a. Mobile Source S0 2 Emissions on the Big

Island (Hawaii)

b. Point Source S0 2 Emissions on the Big

Island (Hawaii)

c. Conclusion of Reasonable Progress

Analysis for SO 2 Emissions on the Big

Island (Hawaii)

d. Benefits of the Emission Control Area on

Emissions From In Transit Marine

Vessels

6. Reasonable Progress Goals-2018

Visibility Projections

7. Visibility Improvement Compared to

URP and Number of Years To Reach

Natural Conditions

G. Long-Term Strategy

1. Interstate Consultation Requirement

2. Identification of Anthropogenic Sources

of Visibility Impairment

3. Other Long Term-Strategy Requirements

a. Emissions Reductions Due to Ongoing

Air Pollution Programs

b. Measures To Mitigate the Impacts of

Construction Activities

c. Emission Limitations and Schedules for

Compliance

d. Sources Retirement and Replacement

Schedules

e. Agricultural and Forestry Smoke

Management Techniques

I. Enforceability of Control Measures

g. Anticipated Net Effect on Visibility Due

to Projected Changes in Point, Area, and

Mobile Source Emissions Over the Next

10 Years

H. Coordination of RAVI and Regional

Haze Requirements

I. Monitoring Strategy

J. Federal Land Manager Consultation and

Coordination

IV. Proposed Action

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory

Planning and Review

B. Paperwork Reduction Act

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

(UMRA)

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation

and Coordination With Indian Tribal

Governments

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of

Children From Environmental Health

Risks and Safety Risks

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions

Concerning Regulations That

Significantly Affect Energy Supply,

Distribution, or Use

I. National Technology Transfer and

Advancement Act

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions

To Address Environmental Justice in

Minority Populations and Low-Income

Populations

I. General Information

A. Definitions

For the purpose of this document, we

are giving meaning to certain words or

initials as follows:

i. The words or initials Act or CAA mean

or refer to the Clean Air Act, unless the

context indicates otherwise.

ii. The initials b-, mean or refer to total

light extinction.

iii. The initials CBI mean or refer to

Confidential Business Information.

iv. The initials DOH refer to the Hawaii

Department of Health.

v. The initials dv mean or refer to

deciview(s).

vi. The initials EGU mean or refer to

Electric Generating Units.

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

refer to the United States Environmental

Protection Agency.

viii. The initials FIP mean or refer to

Federal Implementation Plan.

ix. The initials FLMs mean or refer to

Federal Land Managers.

x. The words Hawaii and State mean or

refer to the State of Hawaii.

xi. The initials HECO mean or refer to the

Hawaiian Electric Company.

xii. The initials HELCO mean or refer to the

Hawaii Electric Light Company.

31692

HeinOnline -- 77 Fed. Reg. 31692 2012
Federal Register/Vol. 77, No. 103/Tuesday, May 29, 2012/Proposed Rules

xiii. The initials IMPROVE mean or refer to

Interagency Monitoring of Protected Visual

Environments monitoring network.

xiv. The initials IPM mean or refer to

Integrated Planning Model.

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

xvi. The initials MECO mean or refer to

Maui Electric Company.

xvii. The initials MW mean or refer to

megawatt(s).

xviii. The initials NEI mean or refer to

National Emissions Inventory.

xix. The initials NH mean or refer to

ammonia.

xx. The initials NOx mean or refer to

nitrogen oxides.

xxi. The initials NP mean or refer to

National Park.

xxii. The initials OC mean or refer to

organic carbon.

xxiii. The initials PM mean or refer to

particulate matter.

xxiv. The initials PM2.

5 mean or refer to

particulate matter with an aerodynamic

diameter of less than 2.5 micrometers (fine

particulate matter).

xxv. The initials PMo mean or refer to

particulate matter with an aerodynamic

diameter of less than 10 micrometers (coarse

particulate matter).

xxvi. The initials ppm mean or refer to

parts per million.

xxvii. The initials PSD mean or refer to

Prevention of Significant Deterioration.

xxviii. The initials RA VI mean or refer to

Reasonably Attributable Visibility

Impairment.

xxix. The initials HP mean or refer to

Reasonable Progress.

xxx. The initials RPG or RPGs mean or

refer to Reasonable Progress Goal(s).

xxxi. The initials RPOs mean or refer to

regional planning organizations.

xxxii. The initials SIP mean or refer to

State Implementation Plan.

xxxiii. The initials S02 mean or refer to

sulfur dioxide.

x. The initials tpy mean or refer to tons per

year.

xi. The initials TSD mean or refer to

Technical Support Document.

xii. The initials URP mean or refer to

Uniform Rate of Progress.

xiii. The initials VOC mean or refer to

volatile organic compounds.

xiv. The initials WEP mean or refer to

Weighted Emissions Potential.

xv. The initials WRAP mean or refer to the

Western Regional Air Partnership.

B. Docket

Data, information, and documents on

which this proposed FIP relies have

been placed in the docket for this action

(docket number EPA-R09-OAR-2012-

0345). All documents in the docket are

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

index. Although listed in the index,

some information is not publicly

available (e.g., Confidential Business

Information (CBI)). Certain other

material, such as copyrighted material,

will be publicly available only in hard

copy form. Publicly available docket

materials are available either

electronically at http://

www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at

the Planning Office of the Air Division,

Air-2, EPA Region 9, 75 Hawthorne

Street, San Francisco, CA 94105. EPA

requests you contact the individual

listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT section to view the hard copy

of the docket. You may view the hard

copy of the docket Monday through

Friday, 9:00-5:30 PST, excluding

Federal holidays.

C. Instructions for Submitting

Comments to EPA

Submit your comments, identified by

Docket ID No. EPA-R09-OAR-2012-

0345 by one of the following methods:

1. Federal Rulemaking portal: http://

www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line

instructions for submitting comments.

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

3. Fax: 415-947-3579 (Attention:

Gregory Nudd).

4. Mail, Hand Delivery or Courier:

Gregory Nudd, EPA Region 9, Air

Planning Office (AIR-2), Air Division,

75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco,

California 94105. Hand and courier

deliveries are only accepted Monday

through Friday, 8:30 a.m.-4:30 p.m.,

excluding Federal holidays. Special

arrangements should be made for

deliveries of boxed information.

EPA's policy is that all comments

received will be included in the public

docket without change and may be

made available online at http://

www.regulations.gov, including any

personal information provided, unless

the comment includes information

claimed to be CBI or other information

whose disclosure is restricted by statute.

Do not submit information that you

consider to be CBI or otherwise

protected through http://

www.regulations.gov or email. The

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

an "anonymous access" system, which

means EPA will not know your identity

or contact information unless you

provide it in the body of your comment.

If you send an email comment directly

to EPA, without going through http://

www.regulations.gov, your email

address will be automatically captured

and included as part of the comment

that is placed in the public docket and

made available on the Internet. If you

submit an electronic comment, EPA

recommends that you include your

name and other contact information in

the body of your comment and with any

disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA

cannot read your comment due to

technical difficulties and cannot contact

you for clarification, EPA may not be

able to consider your comment.

Electronic files should avoid the use of

special characters, any form of

encryption, and be free of any defects or

viruses.

D. Submitting CBI

Do not submit CBI to EPA through

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

Clearly mark the part or all of the

information that you claim to be CBI.

For CBI information in a disk or CD

ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the

outside of the disk or CD ROM as CBI

and then identify electronically within

the disk or CD ROM the specific

information that is claimed as CBI. In

addition to one complete version of the

comment that includes information

claimed as CBI, a copy of the comment

that does not contain the information

claimed as CBI must be submitted for

inclusion in the public docket.

Information so marked will not be

disclosed except in accordance with

procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2.

E. Tips for Preparing Your Comments

When submitting comments,

remember to:

* Identify the rulemaking by docket

number and other identifying

information (subject heading, Federal

Register date and page number).

* Explain why you agree or disagree;

suggest alternatives and substitute

language for your requested changes.

* Describe any assumptions and

provide any technical information and/

or data that you used.

* If you estimate potential costs or

burdens, explain how you arrived at

your estimate in sufficient detail to

allow for it to be reproduced.

* Provide specific examples to

illustrate your concerns, and suggest

alternatives.

* Explain your views as clearly as

possible, avoiding the use of profanity

or personal threats.

* Make sure to submit your

comments by the comment period

deadline identified.

F. Public Hearings

As announced on May 11, 2012, 77

FR 27671, EPA will hold two public

hearings at the following dates, times

and locations to accept oral and written

comments into the record:

Date: May 31, 2012.

Time: Open House: 5:30-6:30 p.m.

Public Hearing 6:30-8:30 p.m.

Location: The University of Hawaii,

Maui College in the Pilina Multipurpose

Room, 310 W. Kaahumanu Avenue,

Kahului, Hawaii 96732.

Date: June 1, 2012.

Time: Open House: 4:30-5:30 p.m.

Public Hearing: 5:30-7:30 p.m.

31693

HeinOnline -- 77 Fed. Reg. 31693 2012
Federal Register/Vol. 77, No. 103/Tuesday, May 29, 2012/Proposed Rules

Location: Waiakea High School

Cafeteria, 155 W. Kawili Street, Hilo,

Hawaii 96720.

To provide opportunities for

questions and discussion, EPA will hold

open houses prior to the public

hearings. During these open houses,

EPA staff will be available to informally

answer questions on our proposed

action. Any comments made to EPA

staff during the open houses must still

be provided formally in writing or orally

during a public hearing in order to be

considered in the record.

The public hearings will provide the

public with an opportunity to present

data, views, or arguments concerning

the proposed Regional Haze FIP for

Hawaii. EPA may ask clarifying

questions during the oral presentations,

but will not respond to the

presentations at that time. Written

statements and supporting information

submitted during the comment period

will be considered with the same weight

as any oral comments and supporting

information presented at the public

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

and I.E of this preamble for guidance on

how to submit written comments to

EPA.

At the public hearing, the hearing

officer may limit the time available for

each commenter to address the proposal

to five minutes or less if the hearing

officer determines it is appropriate. Any

person may provide written or oral

comments and data pertaining to our

proposal at the public hearing. We will

include verbatim transcripts, in English,

of the hearing and written statements in

the rulemaking docket.

II. Background

A. General Description of Regional Haze

Regional haze is visibility impairment

produced by a multitude of sources and

activities that are located across a broad

geographic area and emit fine

particulates (PM2.

5) (e.g., sulfates,

nitrates, organic carbon (OC), elemental

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

precursors (e.g., sulfur dioxide (SO 2),

nitrogen oxides (NOx), and in some

cases, ammonia (NH 3) and volatile

organic compounds (VOC)). Fine

particle precursors react in the

atmosphere to form PM 2.

5, which

impairs visibility by scattering and

absorbing light. Visibility impairment

reduces the clarity, color, and visible

distance that one can see. PM 2.

5 can also

cause serious health effects and

mortality in humans and contributes to

environmental effects such as acid

deposition and eutrophication.

Data from the existing visibility

monitoring network, the "Interagency

Monitoring of Protected Visual

Environments" (IMPROVE) monitoring

network, show that visibility

impairment caused by air pollution

occurs virtually all the time at most

National Parks (NPs) and wilderness

areas (WAs). The average visual range'

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

memorial parks, WAs, and international

parks meeting certain size criteria) in

the western United States is 100-150

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

exist without anthropogenic air

pollution. In most of the eastern Class

I areas of the United States, the average

visual range is less than 30 kilometers,

or about one-fifth of the visual range

that would exist under estimated

natural conditions. 64 FR 35715 (July 1,

1999).

B. Visibility Protection Requirements of

the CAA and EPA's Regulations

In section 169A of the 1977

Amendments to the CAA, Congress

created a program for protecting

visibility in the nation's NPs and

wilderness areas. This section of the

CAA establishes as a national goal the

"prevention of any future, and the

remedying of any existing, impairment

of visibility in mandatory Class I

Federal areas 2 which impairment

results from man-made air pollution."

On December 2, 1980, EPA promulgated

regulations to address visibility

impairment in Class I areas that is

"reasonably attributable" to a single

source or small group of sources, i.e., "reasonably attributable visibility

impairment." 45 FR 80084 (December 2,

1980). These regulations represented the

first phase in addressing visibility

impairment. EPA deferred action on

regional haze that emanates from a

variety of sources until monitoring,

modeling and scientific knowledge

1 Visual range is the greatest distance, in

kilometers or miles, at which a dark object can be

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

areas consist of NPs exceeding 6000 acres,

wilderness areas and national memorial parks

exceeding 5000 acres, and all international parks

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

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

CAA, EPA, in consultation with the Department of

Interior, promulgated a list of 156 areas where

visibility is identified as an important value. 44 FR

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

mandatory Class I area includes subsequent changes

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

7472(a). Although states and tribes may designate

as Class I additional areas which they consider to

have visibility as an important value, the

requirements of the visibility program set forth in

section 169A of the CAA apply only to "mandatory

Class I Federal areas." Each mandatory Class I

Federal area is the responsibility of a "Federal Land

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

"Class I area" in this action, we mean a "mandatory

Class I Federal area."

about the relationships between

pollutants and visibility impairment

were improved.

As part of the 1990 Amendments to

the CAA, Congress added section 169B

to focus attention on regional haze

issues. EPA promulgated a rule to

address regional haze on July 1, 1999.

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

40 CFR part 51, subpart P (Regional

Haze Rule). The primary regulatory

requirements that address regional haze

are found at 40 CFR 51.308 and 51.309

and are summarized below. Under 40

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

Columbia and the Virgin Islands are

required to submit an initial state

implementation plan (SIP) addressing

regional haze visibility impairment no

later than December 17, 2007. 3

C. Requirements for Regional Haze

Implementation Plans

The Regional Haze Rule (RHR) sets

out specific requirements for states'

initial regional haze implementation

plans. In particular, each state's plan

must establish a long-term strategy that

ensures reasonable progress (RP) toward

achieving natural visibility conditions

in each Class I area affected by the

emissions from sources within the state.

In addition, for each Class I area within

the state's boundaries, the plan must

establish a reasonable progress goal

(RPG) for the first planning period that

ends on July 31, 2018. The long-term

strategy must include enforceable

emission limits and other measures as

necessary to achieve the RPG. Regional

haze plans must also give specific

attention to certain stationary sources

that were in existence on August 7,

1977, but were not in operation before

August 7, 1962. These sources, where

appropriate, are required to install Best

Available Retrofit Technology (BART)

controls to eliminate or reduce visibility

impairment. The specific regional haze

plan requirements are summarized

below.

1. Determination of Baseline, Natural

and Current Visibility Conditions

The RHR establishes the deciview

(dv) as the principal metric for

measuring visibility. This visibility

metric expresses uniform changes in

haziness in terms of common

increments across the entire range of

visibility conditions, from pristine to

extremely hazy conditions. Visibility

expressed in deciviews is determined by

using air quality measurements to

estimate light extinction and then

3 EPA's regional haze regulations require

subsequent updates to the regional haze SIPs. 40

CFR 51.308(g)-(i).

31694

HeinOnline -- 77 Fed. Reg. 31694 2012
Federal Register/Vol. 77, No. 103/Tuesday, May 29, 2012/Proposed Rules

transforming the value of light

extinction to deciviews using a

logarithmic function. The deciview is a

more useful measure for tracking

progress in improving visibility than

light extinction because each deciview

change is an equal incremental change

in visibility as perceived by the human

eye.

4

The deciview is used to express

reasonable progress goals, define

visibility conditions and track changes

in visibility. To track changes in

visibility at each of the 156 Class I areas

covered by the visibility program (40

CFR 81.401-437), and as part of the

process for determining reasonable

progress, states must calculate the

degree of existing visibility impairment

at each Class I area and periodically

review progress midway through each

ten-year implementation period. To do

this, the RHR requires states to

determine the degree of impairment (in

deciviews) for the average of the 20

percent least impaired ("best") and 20

percent most impaired ("worst")

visibility days over a specified time

period at each of their Class I areas. In

addition, states must develop an

estimate of natural visibility conditions

for the purpose of comparing progress

toward the national goal. Natural

visibility is determined by estimating

the natural concentrations of pollutants

that cause visibility impairment and

then calculating total light extinction

based on those estimates. 5

For the first regional haze SIPs that

were due by December 17, 2007,

"baseline visibility conditions" are the

starting points for assessing "current"

visibility impairment. Baseline visibility

conditions represent the degree of

visibility impairment for the 20 percent

least impaired days and 20 percent most

impaired days for each calendar year

from 2000 to 2004. Using monitoring

data for 2000 through 2004, states are

required to calculate the average degree

of visibility impairment for each Class I

area, based on the average of annual

values over the five-year period. The

comparison of initial baseline visibility

conditions to natural visibility

conditions indicates the amount of

improvement necessary to attain natural

visibility, while the future comparison

of baseline conditions to the then

current conditions will indicate the

amount of progress. In general, the

4 The preamble to the RHR provides additional

details about the deciview. 64 FR 35714, 35725

(July 1, 1999).

5 See "Guidance for Estimating Natural Visibility

Conditions Under the Regional Haze Rule

(September 2003) and "Guidance for Tracking

Progress Under the Regional Haze Rule (September

2003) for further information.

2000-2004 baseline period is

considered the time from which

improvement in visibility is measured.

2. Determination of Reasonable Progress

Goals

The vehicle for ensuring continuing

progress towards achieving the natural

visibility goal is the submission of a

series of regional haze SIPs that

establish two RPGs (i.e., two distinct

goals, one for the "best" and one for the "worst" days) for every Class I area for

each (approximately) ten-year

implementation period. The RHR does

not mandate specific milestones or rates

of progress, but instead calls for states

to establish goals that provide for "reasonable progress" toward achieving

natural (i.e., "background") visibility

conditions. In setting RPGs, states must

provide for an improvement in visibility

for the most impaired days over the

(approximately) ten-year period of the

SIP, and ensure no degradation in

visibility for the least impaired days

over the same period.

States have significant discretion in

establishing RPGs, but are required to

consider the following factors

established in section 169A of the CAA

and in EPA's RHR at 40 CFR

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

compliance; (2) the time necessary for

compliance; (3) the energy and non-air

quality environmental impacts of

compliance; and (4) the remaining

useful life of any potentially affected

sources. States must demonstrate in

their SIPs how these factors are

considered when selecting the RPGs for

the best and worst days for each

applicable Class I area. States have

considerable flexibility in how they take

these factors into consideration, as

noted in EPA's Guidance for Setting

Reasonable Progress Goals under the

Regional Haze Program (June 1, 2007)

(pp. 4-2, 5-1) ("EPA's Reasonable

Progress Guidance"). In setting the

RPGs, states must also consider the rate

of progress needed to reach natural

visibility conditions by 2064 (referred to

as the "uniform rate of progress" (URP)

or the "glide path") and the emission

reduction measures needed to achieve

that rate of progress over the ten-year

period of the SIP. Uniform progress

towards achievement of natural

conditions by the year 2064 represents

a rate of progress that states are to use

for analytical comparison to the amount

of progress they expect to achieve. In

setting RPGs, each state with one or

more Class I areas ("Class I state") must

also consult with potentially "contributing states," i.e., other nearby

states with emission sources that may be

affecting visibility impairment at the

Class I state's areas. 40 CFR

51.308(d)(1)(iv).

3. Best Available Retrofit Technology

Section 169A of the CAA directs

states to evaluate the use of retrofit

controls at certain larger, often

uncontrolled, older stationary sources in

order to address visibility impacts from

these sources. Specifically, section

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

to revise their SIPs to contain such

measures as may be necessary to make

reasonable progress towards the natural

visibility goal, including a requirement

that certain categories of existing major

stationary sources 6 built between 1962

and 1977 procure, install, and operate

the "Best Available Retrofit

Technology" as determined by the state.

Under the RHR, states are directed to

conduct BART determinations for such

"BART-eligible" sources that may be

anticipated to cause or contribute to any

visibility impairment in a Class I area.

Rather than requiring source-specific

BART controls, states also have the

flexibility to adopt an emissions trading

program or other alternative program as

long as the alternative provides greater

reasonable progress towards improving

visibility than BART.

On July 6, 2005, EPA published the

Guidelines for BART Determinations

under the Regional Haze Rule at

Appendix Y to 40 CFR part 51

(hereinafter referred to as the "BART

Guidelines") to assist states in

determining which of their sources

should be subject to the BART

requirements and in determining

appropriate emission limits for each

such "subject-to-BART" source. States

are required to use the approach set

forth in the BART Guidelines in making

a BART determination for fossil fuelfired electric generating plants with a

total generating capacity in excess of

750 megawatts. States are encouraged,

but not required, to follow the BART

Guidelines in making BART

determinations for other types of

sources.

States must address all visibilityimpairing pollutants emitted by a source

in the BART determination process. The

most significant visibility impairing

pollutants are S02, NON and PM. EPA

has indicated that states should use

their best judgment in determining

whether VOC or NH 3 compounds impair

visibility in Class I areas.

In their SIPs, states must identify

potential BART sources, described in

the RHR as "BART-eligible sources." 40

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

6 The set of "major stationary sources" potentially

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

31695

HeinOnline -- 77 Fed. Reg. 31695 2012
Federal Register/Vol. 77, No. 103/Tuesday, May 29, 2012/Proposed Rules

source is an existing stationary source in

any of 26 listed categories which meets

criteria for startup dates and potential

emissions. See 40 CFR 51.301 and 40

CFR part 51, Appendix Y, § II. Each

BART-eligible source that "emits any air

pollutant which may reasonably be

anticipated to cause or contribute to any

impairment of visibility in any

mandatory Class I Federal area" is

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

The BART Guidelines allow states to

select an exemption threshold value for

their BART modeling, below which a

BART-eligible source would not be

expected to cause or contribute to

visibility impairment in any Class I area.

The Guidelines provide that:

A single source that is responsible for a 1.0

deciview change or more should be

considered to "cause" visibility impairment;

a source that causes less than a 1.0 deciview

change may still contribute to visibility

impairment and thus be subject to BART.

Because of varying circumstances affecting

different Class I areas, the appropriate

threshold for determining whether a source

"contributes to any visibility impairment" for

the purposes of BART may reasonably differ

across States. As a general matter, any

threshold that you use for determining

whether a source "contributes" to visibility

impairment should not be higher than 0.5

deciviews.

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

The state must document its exemption

threshold value in the SIP and must

state the basis for its selection of that

value. Any source with emissions that

model above the threshold value is

subject to BART and must therefore

undergo a BART control analysis.

In making BART determinations,

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

that states consider the following

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

the energy and non-air quality

environmental impacts of compliance;

(3) any existing pollution control

technology in use at the source; (4) the

remaining useful life of the source; and

(5) the degree of improvement in

visibility which may reasonably be

anticipated to result from the use of

such technology. States are free to

determine the weight and significance

assigned to each factor, but all five

factors must be considered. The BART

Guidelines provide further detail about

how to analyze these factors.

Once a state has made its BART

determination, the BART controls must

be installed and operated as

expeditiously as practicable, but no later

than five years after the date EPA

approves the regional haze SIP. CAA

section 169(g)(4), 40 CFR

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

required by the RHR, general SIP

requirements mandate that the SIP must

also include all regulatory requirements

related to monitoring, recordkeeping

and reporting for the BART controls on

the source.

4. Long-Term Strategy

Consistent with the requirement in

section 169A(b) of the CAA that states

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

reasonable progress, section 51.308(d)(3)

of the RHR requires that states include

a long-term strategy (LTS) in their

regional haze SIPs. The LTS is the

compilation of all control measures a

state will use during the

implementation period of the specific

SIP submittal to meet applicable RPGs.

The LTS must include "enforceable

emissions limitations, compliance

schedules, and other measures needed

to achieve the reasonable progress

goals" for all Class I areas within and

affected by emissions from the state. 40

CFR 51.308(d)(3).

When a state's emissions are

reasonably anticipated to cause or

contribute to visibility impairment in a

Class I area located in another state, the

RHR requires the downwind state to

coordinate with contributing states to

develop coordinated emissions

management strategies. 40 CFR

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

contributing state must demonstrate that

it has included in its SIP, all measures

necessary to obtain its share of the

emission reductions needed to meet the

RPGs for the Class I area.

States should consider all types of

anthropogenic sources of visibility

impairment in developing their LTS,

including stationary, minor, mobile, and

area sources. At a minimum, states must

describe how each of the following

seven factors listed below are taken into

account in developing their LTS: (1)

Emission reductions due to ongoing air

pollution control programs, including

measures to address RAVI; (2) measures

to mitigate the impacts of construction

activities; (3) emissions limitations and

schedules for compliance to achieve the

RPG; (4) source retirement and

replacement schedules; (5) smoke

management techniques for agricultural

and forestry management purposes

including plans as currently exist

within the state for these purposes; (6)

enforceability of emissions limitations

and control measures; and, (7) the

anticipated net effect on visibility due to

projected changes in point, area, and

mobile source emissions over the period

addressed by the LTS. 40 CFR

51.308(d)(3)(v).

5. Coordination of the Regional Haze

SIP and Reasonably Attributable

Visibility Impairment

As part of the RHR, EPA revised 40

CFR 51.306(c) regarding the long-term

strategy for RAVI to require that the

RAVI plan must provide for a periodic

review and SIP revision not less

frequently than every three years until

the date of submission of the state's first

plan addressing regional haze visibility

impairment, which was due December

17, 2007, in accordance with 40 CFR

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

the state must revise its plan to provide

for review and revision of a coordinated

LTS for addressing RAVI and regional

haze, and the state must submit the first

such coordinated LTS with its first

regional haze SIP. Future coordinated

LTSs, and periodic progress reports

evaluating progress towards RPGs, must

be submitted consistent with the

schedule for SIP submission and

periodic progress reports set forth in 40

CFR 51.308(f) and 51.308(g),

respectively. The periodic review of a

state's LTS must report on both regional

haze and RAVI impairment and must be

submitted to EPA as a SIP revision.

6. Monitoring Strategy

Section 51.308(d)(4) of the RHR

requires a monitoring strategy for

measuring, characterizing, and reporting

on regional haze visibility impairment

that is representative of all mandatory

Class I areas within the state. The

strategy must be coordinated with the

monitoring strategy required in 40 CFR

51.305 for RAVI. Compliance with this

requirement may be met through "participation" in the Interagency

Monitoring of Protected Visual

Environments (IMPROVE) network, i.e.,

review and use of monitoring data from

the network. The monitoring strategy is

due with the first regional haze SIP, and

it must be reviewed every five years.

The monitoring strategy must also

provide for additional monitoring sites

if the IMPROVE network is not

sufficient to determine whether RPGs

will be met. The SIP must also provide

for the following:

* Procedures for using monitoring

data and other information in a state

with mandatory Class I areas to

determine the contribution of emissions

from within the state to regional haze

visibility impairment at Class I areas

both within and outside the state;

* Procedures for using monitoring

data and other information in a state

with no mandatory Class I areas to

determine the contribution of emissions

from within the state to regional haze

31696

HeinOnline -- 77 Fed. Reg. 31696 2012
Federal Register/Vol. 77, No. 103/Tuesday, May 29, 2012/Proposed Rules

visibility impairment at Class I areas in

other states;

* Reporting of all visibility

monitoring data to the Administrator at

least annually for each Class I area in

the state, and where possible, in

electronic format;

* Developing a statewide inventory of

emissions of pollutants that are

reasonably anticipated to cause or

contribute to visibility impairment in

any Class I area. The inventory must

include emissions for a baseline year,

emissions for the most recent year for

which data are available, and estimates

of future projected emissions. A state

must also make a commitment to update

the inventory periodically; and,

* Other elements, including

reporting, recordkeeping, and other

measures necessary to assess and report

on visibility.

7. SIP Revisions and Progress Reports

The RHR requires control strategies to

cover an initial implementation period

through 2018, with a comprehensive

reassessment and revision of those

strategies, as appropriate, every ten

years thereafter. Periodic SIP revisions

must meet the core requirements of

section 51.308(d) with the exception of

BART. The requirement to evaluate

sources for BART applies only to the

first regional haze SIP. Facilities subject

to BART must continue to comply with

the BART provisions of section

51.308(e), as noted above. Periodic SIP

revisions will assure that the statutory

requirement of reasonable progress will

continue to be met.

Each state also is required to submit

a report to EPA every five years that

evaluates progress toward achieving the

RPG for each Class I area within the

state and outside the state if affected by

emissions from within the state. 40 CFR

51.308(g). The first progress report is

due five years from submittal of the

initial regional haze SIP revision. At the

same time a five-year progress report is

submitted, a state must determine the

adequacy of its existing SIP to achieve

the established goals for visibility

improvement. 40 CFR 51.308(h). The

RHR contains more detailed

requirements associated with these parts

of the Rule.

8. Coordination With Federal Land

Managers

The RHR requires that states consult

with Federal Land Managers (FLMs)

before adopting and submitting their

SIPs. 40 CFR 51.308(i). States must

provide FLMs an opportunity for

consultation, in person and at least sixty

days prior to holding any public hearing

on the SIP. This consultation must

include the opportunity for the FLMs to

discuss their assessment of impairment

of visibility in any Class I area and to

offer recommendations on the

development of the RPGs and on the

development and implementation of

strategies to address visibility

impairment. Furthermore, a state must

include in its SIP a description of how

it addressed any comments provided by

the FLMs. Finally, a SIP must provide

procedures for continuing consultation

between the state and FLMs regarding

the state's visibility protection program,

including development and review of

SIP revisions, five-year progress reports,

and the implementation of other

programs having the potential to

contribute to impairment of visibility in

Class I areas.

D. Roles of Agencies in Addressing

Regional Haze

Successful implementation of the

regional haze program will require longterm regional coordination among

states, tribal governments and various

federal agencies. As noted above,

pollution affecting the air quality in

Class I areas can be transported over

long distances, even hundreds of

kilometers. Therefore, to effectively

address the problem of visibility

impairment in Class I areas, states need

to develop strategies in coordination

with one another, taking into account

the effect of emissions from one

jurisdiction on the air quality in

another.

Because the pollutants that lead to

regional haze can originate from sources

located across broad geographic areas,

EPA has encouraged the states and

tribes across the United States to

address visibility impairment from a

regional perspective. Five regional

planning organizations (RPOs) were

developed to address regional haze and

related issues. The RPOs first evaluated

technical information to better

understand how their states and tribes

impact Class I areas across the country,

and then pursued the development of

regional strategies to reduce emissions

of particulate matter (PM) and other

pollutants leading to regional haze.

The Western Regional Air Partnership

(WRAP) RPO is a collaborative effort of

state governments, tribal governments,

and various federal agencies established

to initiate and coordinate activities

associated with the management of

regional haze, visibility and other air

quality issues in the western United

States. WRAP member State

governments include: Alaska, Arizona,

California, Colorado, Hawaii, Idaho,

Montana, New Mexico, North Dakota,

Oregon, South Dakota, Utah,

Washington, and Wyoming. Tribal

members include Campo Band of

Kumeyaay Indians, Confederated Salish

and Kootenai Tribes, Cortina Indian

Rancheria, Hopi Tribe, Hualapai Nation

of the Grand Canyon, Native Village of

Shungnak, Nez Perce Tribe, Northern

Cheyenne Tribe, Pueblo of Acoma,

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

E. EPA's Authority To Promulgate a FIP

EPA made a finding of failure to

submit on January 15, 2009 (74 FR

2392), determining that Hawaii failed to

submit a SIP that addressed any of the

required regional haze SIP elements of

40 CFR 51.308. Under section 110(c) of

the Act, whenever we find that a State

has failed to make a required

submission we are required to

promulgate a FIP. Specifically, section

110(c) provides:

(1) The Administrator shall promulgate a

Federal implementation plan at any time

within 2 years after the Administrator-

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

required submission or finds that the plan or plan revision submitted by the State does not

satisfy the minimum criteria established

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

(B) disapproves a State implementation

plan submission in whole or in part, unless

the State corrects the deficiency, and the

Administrator approves the plan or plan

revision, before the Administrator

promulgates such Federal implementation

plan.

Section 302(y) defines the term "Federal

implementation plan" in pertinent part,

as:

[A] plan (or portion thereof) promulgated

by the Administrator to fill all or a portion

of a gap or otherwise correct all or a portion

of an inadequacy in a State implementation

plan, and which includes enforceable

emission limitations or other control

measures, means or techniques (including

economic incentives, such as marketable

permits or auctions or emissions allowances)

Thus, because we determined that

Hawaii failed to submit a Regional Haze

SIP, we are required to promulgate a

Regional Haze FIP.

III. Proposed Implementation Plan To

Address Regional Haze in Hawaii

A. Affected Class I Areas

In accordance with 40 CFR 51.308(d),

we have identified two Class I areas

within Hawaii: Hawaii Volcanoes NP on

the Island of Hawaii, and Haleakala NP

on the Island of Maui. EPA is

responsible for developing RPGs for

these two Class I areas. EPA has also

determined that emissions from sources

in Hawaii are not reasonably expected

to have impacts at Class I areas in other

states. See section III.G.1 below.

31697

HeinOnline -- 77 Fed. Reg. 31697 2012
Federal Register/Vol. 77, No. 103/Tuesday, May 29, 2012/Proposed Rules

B. Baseline Visibility, Natural Visibility, baseline/current and natural visibility conditions, and visibility impact

and Uniform Rate of Progress conditions for the two Hawaii Class I reductions needed to achieve the

areas, Hawaii Volcanoes NP and Uniform Rate of Progress (URP) in 2018

As required by section 51.308(d)(2)(i) Haleakala NP, on the most impaired and for each of the two Hawaii Class I areas

of the Regional Haze Rule and in least impaired days, as summarized are presented in Table 1 and further

accordance with our 2003 Natural below.7 The natural visibility explained in this section.

Visibility Guidance, EPA calculated conditions, baseline visibility

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

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

20% Worst days 20% Best

days Hawaii class I area 2018 Reduc- 2064 Natural 2000-2004 baseline2(dv) 2018 URP (dv) tion needed 2064 Natural baseline (dv) (delta dy) 8 conditions (dv) Baseline (dv) conditions (dv)

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

Haleakala N P ........................................... 13.3 11.9 1.4 7.4 4.6 2.7

1. Estimating Natural Visibility As documented in our 2003 Natural this refinement to the "old IMPROVE

Conditions Visibility Guidance, 9 EPA allows the equation" is to provide more accurate

Natural background visibility, as use of "refined" or alternative estimates of the various factors that

defined in our 2003 Natural Visibility approaches to this guidance to estimate affect the calculation of light extinction.

Guidance, is estimated by calculating the values that characterize the natural For the two Class I Areas in Hawaii,

the expected light extinction using visibility conditions of Class I areas. EPA opted to use WRAP calculations in

default estimates of natural One alternative approach is to develop which the default estimates for the

concentrations of fine particle and justify the use of alternative natural conditions (see Table 2) were

components adjusted by site-specific estimates of natural concentrations of combined with the "new IMPROVE

estimates of humidity. This calculation fine particle components. Another equation" and the Natural Conditions II

uses the IMPROVE equation, which is a alternative is to use the "new IMPROVE algorithm (see Table 3). This is an

formula for estimating light extinction equation" that was adopted for use by acceptable approach under our 2003

from the estimated natural the IMPROVE Steering Committee in Natural Visibility Guidance. Table 2

concentrations of fine particle December 2005 and the Natural shows the default natural visibility

components (or from components Conditions II algorithm that was values for the 20% worst days and 20%

measured by the IMPROVE monitors). finalized in May 2007.10 The purpose of best days.

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

Class I area 20% Worst 20% Best

days (dv) days (dv)

H a w a ii Vo lc an o e s N P ..........................................................................................

7 .4 7 2 .3 5

H a le ak a la N P ...............................................................................................7 .2 7 2 .1 5

EPA also referred to WRAP

calculations using the new IMPROVE

equation. Table 3 shows the natural

visibility values for each Class I Area for using the new IMPROVE Equation and

the 20% worst days and 20% best days Natural Conditions II algorithm.

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

EQUATION 11

Class I area 20% Worst 20% Best

days (dv) days (dv)

H a w a ii V o lc a n o e s N P .............................................................................................................................................. 7 .2 2 .2

H a le a k a la N P ........................................................................................................................................................... 7 .4 2 .7

7 Information presented here is based on the

IMPROVE data presented at the WRAP Technical

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

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

docket in the document titled "Technical Support

Document for the Proposed Action on the Federal

Implementation Plan for the Regional Haze Program

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

9, May 14, 2012 [hereinafter "FIP TSD"].

8 Since visibility conditions are expressed in

terms of deciviews (dv), changes in visibility

conditions are typically expressed in terms of

"delta deciviews" or "delta dv."

9 Guidance for Estimating Natural Visibility

Conditions Under the Regional Haze Rule,

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

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

Percentile dv Values at All Mandatory Federal Class

I Areas.

10 The IMPROVE program is a cooperative

measurement effort governed by a steering

committee composed of representatives from

Federal agencies (including representatives from

EPA and the FLMs) and RPOs. The IMPROVE

monitoring program was established in 1985 to aid

the creation of Federal and State implementation

plans for the protection of visibility in Class I areas.

One of the objectives of IMPROVE is to identify

chemical species and emission sources responsible

for existing anthropogenic visibility impairment.

The IMPROVE program has also been a key

instrument in visibility-related research, including

the advancement of monitoring instrumentation,

analysis techniques, visibility modeling, policy

formulation and source attribution field studies.

31698

HeinOnline -- 77 Fed. Reg. 31698 2012
Federal Register/Vol. 77, No. 103/Tuesday, May 29, 2012/Proposed Rules

The new IMPROVE equation takes

into account the most recent review of

the science 12 and accounts for the effect

of particle size distribution on light

extinction efficiency of sulfate, nitrate,

and organic carbon (OC). It also adjusts

the mass multiplier for OC (particulate

organic matter) by increasing it from 1.4

to 1.8. New terms were added to the

equation to account for light extinction

by sea salt and light absorption by

gaseous nitrogen dioxide. Site-specific

values are used for Rayleigh scattering

(scattering of light due to atmospheric

gases) to account for the site-specific

effects of elevation and temperature.

Separate relative humidity enhancement

factors are used for small and large size

distributions of ammonium sulfate and

ammonium nitrate and for sea salt. The

terms for the remaining contributors, EC

(light-absorbing carbon), fine soil, and

coarse mass terms, do not change

between the original and new IMPROVE

equations.

The natural visibility value

estimations for 2064 do not include an

estimate of the visibility impairment

from the emissions from the Kilauea

volcano, which is located in the Hawaii

Volcanoes NP. The emissions from the

volcano vary from year to year, and it

is not possible to estimate the emissions

from the volcano or the effect they will

have on Class I area visibility in the year

2064. Therefore, in estimating natural

conditions for purposes of this first

planning period, we have assumed that

there will be no visibility impact from

the volcano.

2. Estimating Baseline Conditions

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

of the Regional Haze Rule and in

accordance with our 2003 Natural

Visibility Guidance, EPA calculated

baseline visibility conditions for Hawaii

Volcanoes NP and Haleakala NP. The

baseline condition calculation begins

with the calculation of light extinction,

using the IMPROVE equation. The

IMPROVE equation sums the light

extinction 13 resulting from individual

pollutants, such as sulfates and nitrates.

As with the natural visibility conditions

calculation, EPA chose to use the new

IMPROVE equation.

The period for establishing baseline

visibility conditions is 2000 through

2004, and baseline conditions must be

calculated using available monitoring

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

proposes to use visibility monitoring

data collected by IMPROVE monitors

located in the two Hawaii Class I areas

for the years 2001 through 2004 and the

resulting baseline conditions represent

an average for 2001 through 2004. A

complete year of monitoring data was

not available for 2000; therefore, data

from 2000 were not included in the

baseline calculations. Table 4 shows the

baseline conditions for the two Class I

areas.

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

20% Worst 20% Best

Class I area days days

(deciview) (deciview)

H a w a ii V o lc a n o e s N P .............................................................................................................................................. 1 8 .9 4 .1

H a le a k a la N P ........................................................................................................................................................... 1 3 .3 4 .6

3. Summary of Baseline and Natural calculated the number of deciviews by of deciviews by which baseline

Conditions which baseline conditions exceed conditions exceed natural visibility

natural visibility conditions at each conditions at each Class I area.

To address the requirements of 40 Class I area. Table 5 shows the number

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

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

Class I area 20% Worst 20% Best days days

H a w a ii V o lc a n o e s N P .............................................................................................................................................. 1 1 .7 1 .9

H a le a k a la N P ........................................................................................................................................................... 5 .8 1 .9

4. Uniform Rate of Progress

In setting the RPGs, EPA reviewed the

IMPROVE data to analyze and

determine the URP needed to reach

natural visibility conditions by the year

2064. In so doing, the analysis

compared the baseline visibility

conditions in each Class I area to the

natural visibility conditions in each

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

Haze Rule Natural Level Estimates Using the

Revised IMPROVE Aerosol Reconstruction Light

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

colostate.edu/improve/publications/graylit/032

NaturalCondlIpaper/Copeland eta] Natural

ConditionsI Description.p4

12 The science behind the revised IMPROVE

equation is summarized in our FIP TSD, in the TSD

for Technical Products Prepared by the WRAP in

Class I area (as described above) and

determined the URP needed in order to

attain natural visibility conditions by

2064 in the two Class I areas. The

analysis constructed the URP consistent

with the requirements of the Regional

Haze Rule and consistent with our 2003

Tracking Progress Guidance by plotting

a straight line from the baseline level of

Support of Western Regional Haze Plans ("WRAP

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

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

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

Equation for Estimating Ambient Light Extinction

Coefficients-Final Report. March 2006. Prepared

for IMPROVE, Colorado State University,

Cooperative Institute for Research in the

Atmosphere, Fort Collins, Colorado, and Pitchford,

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

visibility impairment for 2000 through

2004 to the level of visibility conditions

representing no anthropogenic

impairment in 2064 for each Class I

area. The URPs are summarized in Table

6. The degree of improvement to meet

the URP at these sites is 1.4 deciviews

at Haleakala NP and 2.7 deciviews at

Hawaii Volcanoes NP.

the New IMPROVE Algorithm to Natural Species

Concentrations Estimates. Final Report of the

Natural Haze Levels II Committee to the RPO

Monitoring/Data Analysis Workgroup. September

2006.

13 The amount of light lost as it travels over one

million meters. The haze index, in units of

deciviews, is calculated directly from the total light

extinction, bex expressed in inverse megameters

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

31699

HeinOnline -- 77 Fed. Reg. 31699 2012
Federal Register/Vol. 77, No. 103/Tuesday, May 29, 2012/Proposed Rules

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

5. Contribution Assessment According

to IMPROVE Monitoring Data

The visibility and pollutant

contributions on the 20% worst

visibility days for the baseline period

(2000-2004) show variation across the

two Class I areas in Hawaii. Table 7

shows average data from the IMPROVE

monitors for 2001 through 2004.14 The

table shows light extinction from

specific pollutants as well as total

extinction, as determined by the

monitoring data. As stated above, these

data provide further detail regarding the

variation across the two Class I areas in

Hawaii.

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

MONITORING DATA

Class I area Sulfate 0 Nitrate 0 Organic Elemental Soil % Sea salt % Coarse mass carbon % carbon % %

Hawaii Volcanoes NP

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

Haleakala NP 15 (13.3

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

The visibility on the 20% worst days

was 18.9 deciviews at Hawaii Volcanoes

NP. Sulfate is the largest contributor to

visibility impairment at the park, with

the volcano contributing substantially to

the impact. The visibility on the 20%

worst days at Haleakala NP was 13.3

deciviews. Sulfate is the largest

contributor to visibility impairment at

Haleakala NP, with the volcano

contributing to the impact, although to

a lesser extent than at the Hawaii

Volcanoes NP. Nitrate from

anthropogenic and natural sources

contributes to 9% of the visibility

degradation at the park. Coarse mass

also contributes to about 9% of the

visibility degradation at the park.

Organic carbon contributes to 10%

and elemental carbon contributes to 5%

of the visibility impairment at the

current monitoring site (HALE1), which

is located outside the park. However,

more recent data measured at the

Haleakala Crater site (HACR1) site at the

Haleakala National Park Border shows

lower concentrations of organic and

elemental carbon than the HALE1

monitoring site. 16 17

14 Additional data and information can be found

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

SummaryDataFiles.aspx.

15 Data from the Haleakala Monitor (HALE1),

located outside Haleakala NP.

16 Comparison of Haleakala National Park HALE1

and HACR1 IMPROVE Monitoring Site 2007-2008

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

Department of Health, Clean Air Branch.

17 Review of VIEWS2.0 2009-2010 Haleakala

National Park Organic and Elemental Carbon Data,

C. Hawaii Emissions Inventories

1. Statewide Emissions Inventories

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

EPA maintain a statewide inventory of

emissions of pollutants that are

reasonably anticipated to cause or

contribute to visibility impairment in

any mandatory Class I Federal area. The

inventory must include emissions for a

baseline year, emissions for the most

recent year for which data are available,

and estimates of future projected

emissions. The Regional Haze Rule does

not specify the baseline year for the

inventory, but EPA has recommended

that 2002 be used as the inventory base

year. 18 2002 is generally appropriate as

the baseline year for Regional Haze SIPs

because it corresponds with the 2000-

2004 period for establishing baseline

visibility conditions, based on available

ambient monitoring data, pursuant to

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

For this first Hawaii Regional Haze

implementation plan, Hawaii DOH

initially selected 2005 as their base year

because it was the most recent year with

a full inventory when they began their

technical work. 19 Since 2005 is not

March 30, 2012, State of Hawaii, Department of

Health, Clean Air Branch.

18 Memorandum from Lydia N. Wegman, "2002

Base Year Emission Inventory SIP Planning: 8-Hour

Ozone, PM2.5 and Regional Haze Programs"

(November 18, 2002).

19Email from Priscilla Ligh, Hawaii DOH, to

Gregg Nudd, EPA, May 3, 2012.

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

within the baseline period of 2000-

2004, EPA has performed a comparison

of the aerosol composition of the 2005

data and 2001-2004 data for each Class

I Area. This analysis showed overall

level and speciation of pollutants

measured at the Class I area monitors in

2005 was consistent with the overall

level and speciation of pollutants during

the 2001-2004 baseline period. Since

the measured visibility-impairing

pollution in 2005 was consistent with

the baseline years, it is reasonable to

assume that the 2005 emissions were

sufficiently consistent with the

exmissions in 2000-2004 for this year to

be used as the baseline for the Regional

Haze Plan.20 Therefore, we propose to

use 2005 as the base year inventory.

The majority of the 2005, 2008, and

2018 inventories were derived from a

2010 study conducted by Environ on

behalf of the Hawaii DOH. 2 1 The

numbers developed by Environ were

then refined and improved by HI

DOH.22 Between the time when the

Environ Study was conducted and the

development of this proposed FIP, EPA

finalized a new model for the estimation

of emissions from on-road vehicles. This

21 "Final Emission Inventory Report: Data

Population for Air System for Hawaii Emissions

Data (AirSHED)," Environ International

Corporation, April 12, 2010.

22 See email from Priscilla Ligh, HI DOH to Greg

Nudd, USEPA, on November 18, 2011 and

associated document: "RevA Emissions inventory

response to EPA 11-17-11 for EPA.doc" The

document also explains any differences between the

Hawaii DOH numbers and the emissions inventory

in the National Emission Inventory for Hawaii.

31700

HeinOnline -- 77 Fed. Reg. 31700 2012
Federal Register/Vol. 77, No. 103/Tuesday, May 29, 2012/Proposed Rules

new model, MOVES, provides for a

more accurate estimation of emissions

from these sources. EPA worked with

the University of North Carolina (UNC)

and ICF International to develop a new

emissions inventory for on-road

vehicles for Hawaii for the years 2005,

2008 and 2018.23 Tables 8 through 10

reflect these revised emissions numbers.

EPA also worked with UNC and ICF

to improve the 2018 emissions estimates

for marine sources. Environ used the

best data available at the time, but did

not account for the impact of the

economic recession on marine vessel

activity, and cruise ships in particular.

In addition, Environ did not take into

account the impact of the North

American Emissions Control Area

(NAECA). The United States

Government, together with Canada and

France, established the NA ECA under

the auspices of Annex VI of the

International Convention for the

Prevention of Pollution from Ships

(MARPOL Annex VI), a treaty

developed by the International Maritime

Organization. This ECA will require use

of lower sulfur fuels in ships operating

within 200 nautical miles of the

majority of the U.S. and Canadian

coastline, including the U.S. Gulf Coast

and Hawaii, beginning in August 2012.

The ECA will result in lower NON and

SO 2 emissions from marine sources in

Hawaii. Therefore, UNC and ICF have

updated the 2018 inventory to include

the benefits of the ECA. The 2018

marine emissions estimates in Table 8

are based on this more recent work by

UNC and ICF. 24

TABLE 8-STATEWIDE EMISSIONS INVENTORY FOR 2005

[Tons per year]

Source category NOx SO2 VOC PM NH3

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

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

W in d b lo w n D u s t ................................................................... ........................ ........................ ........................ 4 6 ,8 0 8 ........................

W ildfire ................................................................................. 2,156 591 4,729 9,771 540

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

T ra in s ................................................................................... 5 ......................... ....................... .. ...................... .. . .....................

V o lc an o ................................................................................ ......................... 9 6 1 ,3 6 6 ........................ ........................ ......................

S e a S p ra y ............................................................................ . ........................ ........................ . ........................ 3 8 2 ,6 3 7 ........................

B io g e n ic ............................................................................... 4 ,6 1 7 ........................ 1 3 0 ,1 5 3 ........................ . ........................

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

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

TABLE 9-STATEWIDE INVENTORY FOR EMISSIONS 2008

[Tons per year]

Source category NOx SO2 VOC PM NH3

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

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

W in d b lo w n D u s t ................................................................... ........................ ........................ ........................ 4 6 ,8 0 8 ........................

W ildfire ................................................................................. 2,156 591 4,729 9,771 540

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

T ra in s ................................................................................... 5 ..................... .. . . ........................ . ..................... .. . .....................

V o lc a n o ................................................................................ ........................ 1 ,1 9 5 ,3 1 4 ........................ . ....................... . . ......................

S e a S p ra y ............................................................................ . ........................ ........................ . ........................ 3 8 2 ,6 3 7 ........................

B io g e n ic ............................................................................... 4 ,6 1 7 ........................ 1 3 0 ,1 5 3 ........................ . ........................

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

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

TABLE 10-STATEWIDE EMISSIONS INVENTORY FOR 2018

Source category NOx SO2 VOC PM NH3

P o in t S o u rc e s ....................................................................... 1 28,594 1 36,212

23 Technical Analysis for Hawaii's Regional Haze 24 "Technical Analysis for Hawaii's Regional

FIP Report-Task 16: On-Road Mobile Emissions Haze FIP Report-Task 16: Commercial Marine

Inventory, ICF International, March 23, 2012. Inventory," ICF International, April 2, 2012.

4,157 1

25 Nautical miles.

5,052

31701

HeinOnline -- 77 Fed. Reg. 31701 2012
Federal Register/Vol. 77, No. 103/Tuesday, May 29, 2012/Proposed Rules

TABLE 10-STATEWIDE EMISSIONS INVENTORY FOR 2018-Continued

Source category NOx SO2 VOC PM NH3

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

W in d b lo w n D u s t ................................................................... ........................ ........................ ........................ 4 6 ,8 0 8 ........................

W ildfire ................................................................................. 2,156 591 4,729 9,771 540

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

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

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

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

A irc ra ft .................................................................................. 1 ,9 2 0 16 7 4 6 6 19 4 ........................

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

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

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

V o lc an o ................................................................................ ......................... 6 8 3 ,7 4 6 ........................ ........................ ......................

S e a S p ra y ............................................................................ ......................... ........................ ......................... 4 2 1 ,2 2 2 ........................

B io g e n ic ............................................................................... 4 ,6 1 7 ........................ 1 3 0 ,1 5 3 ........................ . ........................

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

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

2. Review of the Emissions Inventory for

Completeness and Accuracy

EPA has reviewed the methods used

by Environ, the Hawaii Department of

Health and ICF in developing this

inventory. We propose to find that the

best available emissions factors and

activity data were used in developing

the emissions estimates. We also

propose to find that the inventory

captures all of the emissions sources

relevant to the development of a

Regional Haze Plan.

3. Assessment of the Emissions

Inventory

There are a few important conclusions

to draw from the 2005, 2008, and 2018

statewide emissions inventories in

Tables 8 through 10. First,

nonanthropogenic emissions are

significant for SO 2, VOC and PM. As

one can see from the tables above, the

volcano dominates statewide SO 2

emissions. Emissions from the volcano

comprise over 96% of the SO 2 emissions

in 2005 and 2008. On days when the

volcano is erupting and the winds are

carrying those emissions over the Class

I area monitors, these natural emissions

will dominate the measurements.

Nonanthropogenic sources also

comprise the majority of VOC and PM

emissions. Second, total statewide

anthropogenic emissions of NON and

VOC are decreasing. Human-made NON

pollution is projected to be 21% lower

in 2018 than in 2005. Human-made

VOC pollution is projected to decrease

by 11%. These reductions are primarily

due to EPA regulations for on-road

vehicles. Emissions from cars and trucks

are decreasing dramatically, even

accounting for economic and population

growth. This is due to older, higher

emitting vehicles being replaced by ones

with more modern air pollution

controls. NON emissions in this category

are projected to decrease by over 15,000

tpy and VOC emissions by over 8,000

tpy between 2005 and 2018.

However, anthropogenic SO 2

emissions are expected to increase

between 2005 and 2018, largely due to

increased emissions from point sources.

The lower sulfur marine fuels required

by the ECA are expected to result in a

95% reduction in emissions from

shipping, but those reductions are

overwhelmed by the increases from

point source emissions. The growth rate

of point source emissions is very

sensitive to assumptions about future

economic growth. The Environ report,

from which this data is derived,

assumes robust economic growth

between 2005 and 2018. Given the

economic recession that began in late

2008 this level of emission growth will

likely over-predict future anthropogenic

emissions. Nevertheless, this is the best

data available.

Our analysis of the monitoring data

indicates that SO 2 is the principal

pollutant of concern for this planning

period. See section III.D below. The

visibility impacts of NON and VOC

emissions are of secondary importance.

Id. The increase in anthropogenic SO 2

emissions indicates that additional

pollution reductions are needed to

ensure reasonable progress toward the

goal of eliminating anthropogenic

visibility impairment in Hawaii's

mandatory class I areas. Our proposal to

achieve these reductions is explained in

section III.F of this notice.

D. Sources of Visibility Impairment in

Hawaii Class I Areas

In order to determine the significant

sources contributing to haze in Hawaii's

Class I areas, EPA relied upon the

monitoring data from the IMPROVE

network and the emission inventory for

the State of Hawaii. EPA also reviewed

the source apportionment analysis

developed by Hawaii DOH 26 as well as

the source apportionment analysis by

the National Oceanic and Atmospheric

Administration (NOAA). 27

Table 11, below, shows the percentage

contribution of different pollutant

species to light extinction at the two

Class I Areas in Hawaii on the 20%

Worst Days in 2001 to 2004.

26 Haleakala NP Visibility Assessment, Hawai'i

Volcanoes NP Visibility Assessment, and IMPROVE

PMF Factor Identification notes Positive Matrix

Factorization Analysis of HALE1 & HAVO1

IMPROVE data sets April 20, 2012, State of Hawaii, Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Air Quality

Department of Health, Clean Air Branch. Task Force Meeting, Wailea, Hawaii, November 13

27 M. Pitchford, "Causes of Haze for Hawaii's Two and 15, 2005.

Class I Areas", presented at United States

31702

HeinOnline -- 77 Fed. Reg. 31702 2012
Federal Register/Vol. 77, No. 103/Tuesday, May 29, 2012/Proposed Rules

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

WORST DAYS

Sulfate is the largest cause of visibility

degradation on the 20% worst days at

both Haleakala NP and Hawaii

Volcanoes NP. Natural causes of sulfate

include the emissions from the Kilauea

volcano, located in the Hawaii

Volcanoes NP, and natural marine

sulfates. The emissions and impact of

the volcano varies substantially from

year to year. Source apportionment

assessments have estimated that the

volcano causes approximately 90% of

the visibility impairment at Hawaii

Volcanoes NP and approximately 60%

of the visibility impairment at Haleakala

NP on the 20% worst days. The natural

marine sulfate impact is expected to be

much smaller.29 International transport

may also contribute to sulfur visibility

impairment. Anthropogenic sources of

sulfur include oil combustion, and

shipping.

Nitrate contributes 9% to the

visibility degradation on the 20% worst

days at Haleakala. The major

anthropogenic sources of nitrate on

Maui are point sources, on-road and

non-road mobile sources, and shipping.

Nitrate contributes 1% to the visibility

degradation on the 20% worst days at

Hawaii Volcanoes NP.

Organic Carbon contributes to 10% of

the visibility degradation at the

Haleakala (HALE1) monitor, which is

located outside of the park. A

comparison of monitoring data at the

Haleakala Crater (HACR1) IMPROVE

monitoring site at the Haleakala Site

boundary shows approximately half the

level of organic carbon of the HALE1

site.30 Sources of organic carbon include

agricultural burning, oil combustion,

and international transport. Organic

Carbon contributes 4% of the visibility

degradation at the Hawaii Volcanoes NP

during the 2001-2004 time period,

although more recent data from 2005-

2009 indicate that organic carbon

28 Data from the HALE Monitor, located outside

Haleakala NP.

29 Yvon and Saltzman 1996, Atmospheric Sulfur

Cycling in the Tropical Marine Boundary Layer. J.

Geophys. Res. 101, 6911-6918.

30 Review of VIEWS2.0 2009-2010 Haleakala NP

Organic and Elemental Carbon Data, March 30,

2012, State of Hawaii, Department of Health, Clean

Air Branch, and Comparison of Haleakala NP

HALE1 and HACR1 IMPROVE Monitoring Site

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

Hawaii, Department of Health, Clean Air Branch.

contributes to 1% of the visibility

impairment for the 20% worst days.

Elemental Carbon contributes to 5%

of the visibility degradation at the

Haleakala (HALE1) monitor, which is

located outside of the park. A

comparison of recent monitoring at the

Haleakala Crater monitoring site at

Haleakala NP (HACR1) shows a lower

level of elemental carbon of the HALE1

site.

Coarse mass contributes to 9% of the

visibility degradation at the Haleakala

(HALE1) monitor. The sources of coarse

mass include fugitive dust, international

transport, and shipping. Soil contributes

to 1% of the visibility degradation at

each of the Class I Areas. The soil

impact varies seasonally, with the

highest levels in the springtime, and

appears to be associated with

international transport.

EPA has evaluated the six particulate

pollutants (ammonium sulfate,

ammonium nitrate, organic carbon (OC),

elemental carbon (EC), fine soil and

coarse mass (CM)) that contribute to

visibility impairment at Hawaii's two

mandatory Class I federal areas, and

determined that the first Regional Haze

Plan RP evaluation should focus

primarily on significant sources of SO 2

(sulfate precursor). NOx (nitrate

precursor) is a secondary concern.

The sources of coarse mass (CM) are

uncertain because of emission inventory

limitations associated with natural

sources (predominantly wildfires) and

uncertainty of fugitive (windblown)

emissions. Because of the difficulty in

attributing the sources of visibility

impairment for this pollutant, EPA has

determined that it is not reasonable in

this planning period to recommend

emission control measures for coarse

mass. Coarse mass contribution to

visibility impairment, emissions

sources, and potential control measures

should be addressed in future Regional

Haze plan updates.

Because fine soil appears to be

primarily attributable to international

transport, EPA has determined that it is

not reasonable in this planning period

to recommend emission control

measures for fine soil. Although organic

and elemental carbon contribute to base

year visibility impairment, recent

monitoring at the Haleakala Crater

(HACR1) monitoring site and the Hawaii

Volcanoes (HAVOl) show low

contributions to visibility impairment

from organic and elemental carbon.

E. Best Available Retrofit Technology

Evaluation

1. Identification of BART-Eligible

Sources

The first step of a BART evaluation is

to identify all the BART-eligible sources

within the state's boundaries. In 2008,

the Hawaii DOH conducted a survey of

the major sources in the state to identify

which sources were BART eligible. This

survey was completed and certified by

the responsible official at each major

source. Through that process, the

following facilities were identified as

BART-eligible: Hawaiian Commercial &

Sugar Company (HC&S) Puunene

facility, Chevron Refinery, Tesoro

Refinery, Hu Honua BioenergyPepeekeo facility, Maui Electric

Company (MECO)-Kahului facility,

Hawaii Electric Light Company

(HELCO) Kanoelehua Hill, Hawaiian

Electric Company (HECO)-Waiau

facility, HECO-Kahe facility. We

propose to determine that each of these

facilities is BART-eligible.

2. Identification of Sources Subject to

BART

The second step of the BART

evaluation is to identify those BARTeligible sources that may reasonably be

anticipated to cause or contribute to any

visibility impairment at any Class I area,

i.e., those sources that are subject to

BART. The BART Guidelines allow us

to consider exempting some BARTeligible sources from further BART

review because they may not reasonably

be anticipated to cause or contribute to

any visibility impairment in a Class I

area. We propose to use the dispersion

modeling that the Hawaii DOH's

consultant performed.31 This modeling

assessed the extent of each BARTeligible source's contribution to

visibility impairment at the Class I

31 Subject-to-Best Available Retrofit Technology

(BART) Modeling for the State of Hawaii,

Application of the CALPUFF Modeling System,

March 3, 2010, Alpine Geophysics, LLC.

31703

HeinOnline -- 77 Fed. Reg. 31703 2012
Federal Register/Vol. 77, No. 103/Tuesday, May 29, 2012/Proposed Rules

areas, consistent with the BART

Guidelines.

a. Modeling Methodology

The BART Guidelines provide that we

may use the CALPUFF 32 modeling

system or another appropriate model to

predict the visibility impacts from a

single source on a Class I area and to,

therefore, determine whether an

individual source is anticipated to cause

or contribute to impairment of visibility

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

BART." The Guidelines state that we

find CALPUFF is the best regulatory

modeling application currently

available for predicting a single source's

contribution to visibility impairment (70

FR 39162 (July 6, 2005)).

The BART Guidelines indicate that a

modeling protocol be developed for

determining individual source

attributions. The State of Hawaii's

contractor, Alpine Geophysics,

developed a protocol, which was

reviewed by the State of Hawaii and

EPA. 3 3 Although the BART Guidelines

recommend use of a minimum of three

years of mesoscale meteorological

model output for conducting this type of

analysis, only one year (2005) of

mesoscale meteorological data was

available at the time this protocol was

developed. 34 Therefore, emissions were

modeled over a one-year period using

the 2005 mesoscale meteorological

data. 35 Consistent with the BART

Guidelines, this modeling was based on

maximum actual 24-hour emissions for

each source. EPA believes that this

modeling provides a reasonable estimate

of daily visibility impacts above

estimated natural conditions at each

Class I area. Therefore, we propose to

use the results of this CALPUFF

modeling to determine whether each

BART-eligible source has a significant

impact on visibility.

b. Contribution Threshold

For the modeling to determine the

applicability of BART to single sources,

the BART Guidelines note that the first

step is to set a contribution threshold to

assess whether the impact of a single

source is sufficient to cause or

contribute to visibility impairment at a

Class I area. The BART Guidelines state

that, "[a] single source that is

responsible for a 1.0 deciview change or

more should be considered to 'cause'

visibility impairment." 70 FR 39161,

July 5, 2005. The BART Guidelines also

state that "the appropriate threshold for

determining whether a source

contributes to visibility impairment may

reasonably differ across states," but,

"[a]s a general matter, any threshold

that you use for determining whether a

source 'contributes' to visibility

impairment should not be higher than

0.5 deciviews." Id. Further, in setting a

contribution threshold, states or EPA

should "consider the number of

emissions sources affecting the Class I

areas at issue and the magnitude of the

individual sources' impacts." The

Guidelines affirm that states and EPA

are free to use a lower threshold if they

conclude that the location of a large

number of BART-eligible sources in

proximity to a Class I area justifies this

approach.

For its analysis, Hawaii chose to use

the recommended 0.5 deciview

threshold for subject-to-BART

determination and RP prioritization.

EPA believes this threshold is

appropriate, based on the number of

sources affecting the Class I areas and

the magnitude of the individual sources

impacts. Therefore, we propose to use a

contribution threshold of 0.5 deciviews

for determining which sources are

subject to BART.

c. Sources Identified by EPA as Subject

to BART

The CALPUFF modeling analysis was

performed to determine which BARTeligible sources in Hawaii are subject to

BART.36 The modeling assessment

looked at the HC&S Puunene facility,

the Chevron Refinery, the Tesoro

Refinery, the Hu Honua BioenergyPepeekeo facility, the MECO-Kahului

facility, the HELCO Kanoelehua Hill

facility, the HECO-Waiau facility, and

the HECO-Kahe facility. The only

facilities that showed a 98th percentile

(8th high) 24-hour average visibility

impact over the 0.5 delta deciview

impact threshold were the Hu Honua

Bioenergy-Pepeekeo and the HELCOKanoelehua Hill facilities. Thus, the Hu

Honua Bioenergy-Pepeekeo and the

HELCO-Kanoelehua Hill facilities are

subject to BART. The remaining

facilities; HC&S Puunene facility, the

Chevron Refinery, the Tesoro Refinery,

the MECO-Kahului facility, the

HECO-Waiau facility, and the HECOKahe facility are not subject to BART.

As shown in Table 12, EPA proposes

to exempt six of the eight BART-eligible

sources in the State from further review

under the BART requirements. The

visibility impacts attributable to each of

these sources fell below 0.5 deciviews.

Our proposed contribution threshold

captures those sources responsible for

most of the total visibility impacts,

while still excluding other sources with

very small impacts.

The results of the CALPUFF modeling

are summarized in Table 12. Those

facilities listed with demonstrated

impacts at all Class I areas less than 0.5

deciviews are proposed by EPA to not

be subject to BART; those with impacts

greater than 0.5 deciviews are proposed

by EPA to be subject to BART.

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

Maximum 24-

hour 98th per- Subject to BART

Source and unit Class I area centile visibility or exempt

impact

(deciview)

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

0.008

Exempt.

32 Note 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/calpuffl.h tm.

33 Subject-to-Best Available Retrofit Technology

(BART) and Reasonable Progress (RP) Prioritization

Modeling Protocol for the State of Hawaii

Application of the CALPUFF Modeling System,

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

Islands, prepared for Hawaii State Department of

Health, Environmental Management Division, Clean

Air Branch Prepared by: Alpine Geophysics, LLC.

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

have since been prepared for HECO. MM5

Meteorological Dataset Development for Hawaii,

Draft December 2008, JCA. EPA has not reviewed

this additional data, but may evaluate and consider

this data for future visibility actions.

36 Subject-to-Best Available Retrofit Technology

(BART) Modeling for the State of Hawaii,

Application of the CALPUFF Modeling System,

Alpine Geophysics, LLC, 3 March 2010.

31704

HeinOnline -- 77 Fed. Reg. 31704 2012
Federal Register/Vol. 77, No. 103/Tuesday, May 29, 2012/Proposed Rules

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

Maximum 24-

hour 98th per- Subject to BART

Source and unit Class I area centile visibility o xm T

impact or exempt

(deciview)

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

0.039

C hevron Refinery ........................................................................................ Haleakala Haw aii Volcanoes ...... 0.021 Exem pt.

0.016

Tesoro Refinery .......................................................................................... Haleakala Haw aii Volcanoes ...... 0.025 Exem pt.

0.017

Hu Honua Bioenergy- Pepeekeo facility ................................................... Haleakala Hawaii Volcanoes ...... 0.323 Subject to

0.540 BART.

M ECO- Kahului facility .............................................................................. Haleakala Hawaii Volcanoes ...... 0.232 Exem pt.

0.108

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

2.334 BART.

HECO- W aiau facility ................................................................................. Haleakala Hawaii Volcanoes ...... 0.083 Exem pt.

0.038

HECO- Kahe facility .................................................................................. Haleakala Hawaii Volcanoes ...... 0.221 Exem pt.

0.132

The owner of the Hu Honua * Step 2: Eliminate Technically visibility impact analysis occurs during

Bioenergy relinquished the facility's Infeasible Options; steps 4 and 5 of the process.

existing permit on September 16, 2010 e Step 3: Evaluate Control As mentioned previously, the only

and the facility was issued a new permit Effectiveness of Remaining Control source in Hawaii subject to BART is the

on August 31, 2011, which allows the Technologies; Kanoelehua Hill Generating Station

facility to burn only non-fossil fuels. 37 e Step 4: Evaluate Impacts and (Hill) on the Island of Hawaii (the Big

Since the facility can no longer burn Document the Results; and Island). Specifically, there are two

fossil fuels, it is no longer BART-eligible e Step 5: Evaluate Visibility Impacts. residual fuel oil-fired boilers at this

and thus not subject to BART. In determining BART, the state, or plant that are subject to BART (Hill 5

Therefore, the only subject-to-BART EPA if implementing a FIP, must and Hill 6). Hill 5 is a 14 megawatt

source in Hawaii is the HELCO consider the five statutory factors in (MW) front-fired boiler. Hill 6 is a 21

Kanoelehua Hill facility. section 169A of the CAA: (1) The costs MW tangentially fired boiler. Both

3. BART Determination for Kanoelehua of compliance; (2) the energy and non- boilers currently burn residual oil with

Hill air quality environmental impacts of a sulfur content not to exceed 2% by

compliance; (3) any existing pollution weight. Table 13 summarizes the

The third step of a BART evaluation control technology in use at the source; baseline emission rates and modeled

is to perform the BART analysis. The (4) the remaining useful life of the visibility impact of these sources. The

BART Guidelines (70 FR 39164 (July 6, source; and (5) the degree of annual emissions are based on 2009

2005)) describe the BART analysis as improvement in visibility which may operations because 2009 was the most

consisting of the following five steps: reasonably be anticipated to result from current, complete year of data available

* Step 1: Identify All Available the use of such technology. See also 40 when this modeling was performed in

Retrofit Control Technologies; CFR 51.308(e)(1)(ii)(A). The actual 2010.

TABLE 13-BASELINE EMISSIONS AND VISIBILITY IMPACTS OF HILL

S 0 2 e m iss io n s ..................................................................................................................................................... to n s p e r y e a r [tpy ] ..... 2 ,7 7 8

N O x e m is s io n s .................................................................................................................................................... tp y .............................. 7 3 5

P M e m is s io n s ...................................................................................................................................................... tp y .............................. 7 0

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

V isibility im pact on H aw aii V olcanoes N P ........................................................................................................... delta dv ...................... 1.56

Trinity Consulting, on behalf of

HELCO, the plant operator, performed a

five-factor analysis for this plant. 39 We

have reviewed this analysis and believe

it adequately addresses the five BART

factors. Although the BART guidelines

are not mandatory for Hill because the

37 Letter from Stuart Yamada, Hawaii DOH, to

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

2011) attaching Covered Source Permit (CSP) No.

0724-01-C and Covered Source Permit Review

Summary.

plant's total generating capacity is less

than 750 megawatts, the Trinity analysis

is generally consistent with the

guidelines. Our analysis of the five

factors is largely based on the Trinity

report.

3 These results from Trinity's modeling indicate

a lower impact than Alpine's modeling. However,

even with Trinity's modeling, the baseline impacts

are high enough to make the source subject to

BART.

a. BART for NON and Particulate Matter

(PM)

The Trinity report appropriately

examined BART controls for NON and

PM. However, due to the overwhelming

contribution of sulfate to visibility

impairment at the nearby Hawaii

39 BART Five-Factor Analysis Prepared for

Hawaiian Electric Light Company, October 2010,

Trinity Consultants.

31705

HeinOnline -- 77 Fed. Reg. 31705 2012
Federal Register/Vol. 77, No. 103/Tuesday, May 29, 2012/Proposed Rules

Volcanoes Class I area, it is unlikely that

reductions in these pollutants from Hill

would have a measurable impact on

visibility at that area.

For PM, the Trinity report considered

the following technologies: Dry

electrostatic precipitator (ESP), wet ESP,

fabric filter, wet scrubber, cyclone and

fuel switching. Dry ESPs, cyclones and

fabric filters are not appropriate for the

type of particulate emitted by this plant.

A wet scrubber would work, but these

types of devices are better suited to

larger particulate than is emitted from

an oil-fired boiler and their control

efficiency would be small. A wet ESP

would have good control efficiency and

is technically feasible. Similarly,

switching to distillate fuel would be an

effective and technically feasible control

for PM. Trinity estimated the cost

effectiveness of a wet ESP as $13,000

per ton of PM controlled. They

estimated the cost effectiveness of

switching to distillate fuel as $170,000

per ton. Neither of these controls would

be cost effective for PM.

For NOx, the Trinity report

considered both combustion controls

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

controls such as selective catalytic

reduction (SCR). There were no

technical barriers to implementing any

of these controls. The post-combustion

controls were not found to be cost

effective. Low-NOx burners were found

to be cost effective by the Trinity report.

However, given the monitoring data on

Hawaii, EPA finds that the emission

reductions provided by low-NOx

burners is unlikely to provide a

measurable visibility benefit at Hawaii

Volcanoes or Haleakala.

Based on our consideration of the five

BART factors, EPA has determined that

no control for NOx and PM at the Hill

plant is consistent with BART, given the

unique conditions in Hawaii. NOx

reductions may need to be pursued in

future planning periods as

anthropogenic sulfates are reduced and

nitrates become a larger portion of

anthropogenic visibility impairment.

b. BART for SO 2

The principal visibility-impairing

pollutant from the Hill Plant is SO 2 . As

explained above, sulfates are the largest

component of visibility impairment at

Hawaii Volcanoes and at Haleakela,

even on the best days. The Hill Plant is

by far the largest source of

anthropogenic SO 2 emissions on the Big

Island.

The Trinity report considered both

flue gas desulfurization (FGD) and fuel

switching as possible controls. The

report found that no other oil-fired

electric generating unit had installed

FGD technology and due to the lack of

industry experience, the technology was

infeasible. EPA agrees that FGD

technology is unproven for this

application and concurs with Trinity's

decision to focus on fuel switching.

However, the Trinity analysis only

looked at switching to distillate fuel oil.

Distillate fuel oil is substantially more

expensive than residual fuel oil and it

provides less energy per gallon. As a

result, it is not a cost effective control

measure.

EPA requested HECO to consider

switching to lower sulfur residual fuel

oil, which would be a less expensive

option. HECO responded with its own

cost effectiveness estimate. 40 The lowest

cost option, residual fuel oil no more

than 1% sulfur by weight, had a cost

effectiveness of between $6,677/ton and

$7,363/ton.

EPA considered this cost estimate to

be too high in light of available market

data and conducted our own analysis,

which is summarized in Table 14,

below, and further explained in the TSD

for this action.

TABLE 14-COST AND BENEFITS OF

SWITCHING TO 1% SULFUR FUEL OIL

Baseline Weight % Sulfur [S]

Baseline Fuel Consumption

[g a l/y r] ...............................

Baseline Emissions [tons

S 0 2/y r] ...............................

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

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

Controlled Emissions [tons

S 0 2/y r] ...............................

Annual Costs [$/yr] ...............

Annual Emission Reductions

[tons S02/yr] ......................

Cost Efficiency [$/ton S02

red uced ] ............................

18,650,604

2,344

1.00

0.255

1,493

4,755,904

851

5,587

Based on this analysis, EPA estimates

that requiring a switch to l% sulfur fuel

40 Letter from Brenner Munger, Manager,

Environmental Department, Hawaiian Electric

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

27, 2012.

oil would result in a reduction in SO 2

emissions of 851 tons per year and an

increase in fuel costs of over $4.7

million/year. Thus, the cost

effectiveness of this control option is

estimated to be approximately $5,600/

ton. EPA contracted with the energy

economics consulting firm Energy

Strategies to estimate the impact of

these increased fuel costs on electric

rates. 4 1 Based on its analysis, these

increased costs would translate into a

roughly 1% increase in retail electric

rates on the Big Island.

The next factors to consider are: (2)

The energy and non-air quality

environmental impacts of compliance;

(3) any existing pollution control

technology in use at the source; and (4)

the remaining useful life of the source.

There are no existing pollution controls

at the site for SO 2 . We have considered

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

Hawaii Clean Energy Initiative, a

collaborative effort by the State of

Hawaii, the U.S. Department of Energy

and various other stakeholders. The

Initiative's ultimate goal is meeting 70%

of the state's energy needs through

energy efficiency and renewable energy

by 2030. One of the key pieces of

legislation aimed at achieving this goal

is Hawaii's 2009 Clean Energy Omnibus

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

June 25, 2009). This statute calls for

30% reduction in the state's energy use

via efficiency and increases the state's

renewable portfolio standard to 40% by

2030. EPA contracted with UNC and ICF

to project the 2018 emissions of power

plants considering the requirements of

the Clean Energy Omnibus Bill. 4 2 These

projections are compared to the current

2018 projections based on the most

recent Integrated Resource Plan (IRP) for

Hawaii electric utilities. This IRP

predates the 2009 bill and so does not

account for its requirements. Table 15

compares the baseline emission

projections for 2018, derived from the

current IRP and the projections that take

into account the requirements of the

Clean Energy Bill.

41 Fuel Cost Screening Tool (ri 4-18-12), Energy

Strategies Incorporated, April 18, 2012.

42 Email from Juanita Haydel, ICF Corporation to

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

spreadsheet titled: "Hawaii Emissions

Values Revised 040412 FTC.xlsx."

31706

HeinOnline -- 77 Fed. Reg. 31706 2012
Federal Register/Vol. 77, No. 103/Tuesday, May 29, 2012/Proposed Rules

TABLE 15-RANGE OF 2018 EMISSIONS PROJECTIONS FOR HILL

[Tons per year]

2018 SO 2 2018 SO 2

emissions emissions

IRP Clean energy

bill

K a noelehua H ill G e ne rating S tation ........................................................................................................................ 3 ,264 765

The projections based on the goals of

the Clean Energy Bill assume that the

energy conservation and renewable

energy goals will be met in a more or

less even fashion year to year. So, by

2018, most of these projects will be in

place. This is a fairly optimistic

scenario, but it gives some insight into

the impact of the Clean Energy Bill. By

2018, Hill is projected to be operating at

a significantly lower capacity factor

and/or burning biofuels with much less

sulfur. Although the resulting

reductions in sulfur emissions are not

enforceable requirements, they suggest

that SO 2 emissions from Hill may

decrease even in the absence of any

BART requirements. This analysis also

indicates that at least some of the units

at Hill may be coming to the end of their

useful life within the next 20 years.

The final factor to consider is the

visibility benefits of controls. Under the

BART Guidelines, the improved

visibility in deciviews from installing

controls is determined by using the

CALPUFF air quality model. CALPUFF,

generally, simulates the transport and

dispersion of emissions, and the

conversion of S0 2 to particulate sulfate

and NOx to particulate nitrate, at a rate

dependent on meteorological conditions

and background ozone concentration.

These concentrations are then converted

to delta deciviews by the CALPOST

post-processor. The CALPUFF modeling

system is available and documented at

EPA's Model Distribution Web page.

43

The "delta deciviews" for control

options estimated by the modeling

represents a BART source's impact on

visibility at the Class I areas under

different control scenarios. Each

modeled day and location in the Class

I area will have an associated delta

deciviews for each control option. For

each day, the model finds the maximum

visibility impact of all locations (i.e.,

receptors) in the Class I area. From

among these daily values, the BART

Guidelines recommend use of the 98th

percentile, for comparing the base case

and the effects of various controls.

43 EPA's Model Distribution Web page available

at: http://www.epa.govlttnlscraml

dispersionprefrec.htm#calpuff.

In its BART analysis for Hill, Trinity

modeled the lower emission rates

associated with lower sulfur fuels and

estimated the following visibility

benefits. The delta deciview (delta dv)

impact from Hill decreased from 1.56

for baseline conditions to 1.05 when

burning the 1% sulfur fuel, which

represents an approximately 0.5 dv

benefit.

Taking into consideration all of these

factors, we propose to determine that

BART for Hill is no additional controls.

In particular, although we consider 0.5

dv to be a significant improvement in

visibility, we do not believe it justifies

the imposition of a control with a cost

effectiveness of approximately $5,600/

ton in this case. We are particularly

concerned about unduly increasing

electricity rates in Hawaii, given that

these rates are already three times the

national average according to the Energy

Information Agency.44 Therefore, we

propose to determine that no BART

controls be required for Hill.

Nonetheless, as explained below, our

reasonable progress analysis shows that

some additional SO 2 controls are

needed on the Big Island in order to

protect against degradation of visibility

and that Hill may be an appropriate

source for such SO 2 reductions.

F. Reasonable Progress Goals for Hawaii

In determining if reasonable progress

is being made, states, or EPA if

implementing a FIP, are required to

consider the following factors

established in section 169A of the CAA

and in our Regional Haze Rule at 40

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

compliance; (2) the time necessary for

compliance; (3) the energy and non-air

quality environmental impacts of

compliance; and (4) the remaining

useful life of any potentially affected

sources ("the four RP factors"). Once

these factors have been considered, the

typical method for determining if a state

is making reasonable progress is to use

meteorological and air quality computer

models to predict the visibility at Class

I areas for the end of the planning

period (2018). Those modeling results

4 4 http://205.254.135.71statelstate-energyrankings.cfm?key id= 18 &orderid=l 1.

are then assessed to ensure that

visibility is not degrading on the best

days and that it is improving on the

worst days at a reasonable rate, taking

into consideration the relevant statutory

factors, as well as the base period

visibility conditions and the goal of zero

anthropogenic visibility impairment by

2064.

In the case of Hawaii, though, a

different method of determining

reasonable progress is required. As

explained above in sections III.C.1 and

III.D, the dominant cause of visibility

impairment at Hawaii's Class I areas is

sulfate compounds and over 96% of the

sulfate emissions in Hawaii are from the

volcano. However, because the volcanic

eruptions vary greatly from year to year

with no discernible pattern, it is

impossible to predict future volcanic

emissions. The emissions vary by

hundreds of thousands of tons per year.

As a result, there is little value in

attempting to model visibility at the

Class I areas in 2018.

1. Identification of Pollutants for

Reasonable Progress

EPA has evaluated the six particulate

pollutants (ammonium sulfate,

ammonium nitrate, organic carbon (OC),

elemental carbon (EC), fine soil and

coarse mass (CM)) that contribute to

visibility impairment at Hawaii's two

mandatory Class I federal areas. Sulfate

is the primary cause of visibility

impairment at each of Hawaii's Class I

Areas, and EPA has determined that the

first Regional Haze Plan RP evaluation

should focus primarily on significant

sources of SO 2 (sulfate precursor). NOx

(nitrate precursor) is a secondary

concern, as it contributes to 9% of the

visibility degradation on the 20% worst

days at Haleakala.

Coarse mass contributes to 9% of the

visibility degradation at Haleakala, and

is also of concern. However, the sources

of coarse mass (CM) are uncertain

because of emission inventory

limitations associated with natural

sources (predominantly wildfires) and

uncertainty of fugitive (windblown)

emissions. Because of the difficulty in

attributing the sources of visibility

impairment for this pollutant, EPA has

31707

HeinOnline -- 77 Fed. Reg. 31707 2012
Federal Register/Vol. 77, No. 103/Tuesday, May 29, 2012/Proposed Rules

determined that it is not reasonable in

this planning period to recommend

emission control measures for coarse

mass. Coarse mass contribution to

visibility impairment, emissions

sources, and potential control measures

should be addressed in future Regional

Haze plan updates.

Because fine soil appears to be

primarily attributable to international

transport, EPA is proposing to

determine that it is not reasonable in

this planning period to recommend

emission control measures for fine soil.

Although organic and elemental carbon

contribute to base year visibility

impairment, recent monitoring at the

Haleakala Crater (HACR1) monitoring

site and the Hawaii Volcanoes (HAV01)

site show low contributions to visibility

impairment from organic and elemental

carbon.

2. Determining Reasonable Progress

Through Island-Specific Emissions

Inventories

Due to the absence of modeling to

project visibility at Hawaii's Class I

areas in 2018, EPA is focusing its

reasonable progress analysis on

reducing anthropogenic emissions of

visibility-impairing pollution. As

explained in section III.D above, the key

anthropogenic pollutants of concern are

S02 and NOx, especially S02. We

looked at trends in emissions of

anthropogenic S02 and NOx in order to

judge if reasonable progress is being

achieved.

Rather than use a full statewide

inventory to judge reasonable progress,

we focused on the inventories for the

islands where the Class I areas are

located: Maui and the island of Hawaii

("the Big Island"). Population,

economic activity and therefore

anthropogenic emissions in the State of

Hawaii are concentrated on the island of

Oahu. But, as explained below, our

analysis indicates that those emissions

do not significantly impair visibility at

the Class I areas. Prevailing winds at the

Honolulu Airport on Oahu are from the

east-north-east. 45 The prevailing winds

on Maui are from the northeast.46 The

Class I areas are south and east of Oahu.

Therefore, these trade winds tend to

transport pollution from Oahu away

from the Class I areas. In addition,

modeling performed to estimate the

visibility impact of currently operating

individual sources of pollution on the

Class I areas in the state indicates that

even very large sources on Oahu have

relatively small visibility impacts on

Haleakela. 4 7

Given these modeling results and the

prevailing winds in Oahu and Maui for

this planning period, we have focused

our RP analysis on the islands that

contain the Class I areas. Tables 16 and

17 show the emission inventories for the

islands of Maui and Hawaii.48

TABLE 16-MAUI ANTHROPOGENIC EMISSIONS INVENTORY

2005 Inventory 2018 Inventory

Source category

NOx SO2 NOx SO 2

P o int ................................................................................................................. 4 ,4 9 2 4 ,5 5 9 4 ,5 9 7 4 ,6 2 5

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

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

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

A irc ra ft .............................................................................................................. 3 1 0 2 7 3 7 6 3 3

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

W ildfires ................................................................................................. ........ 52 14 52 14

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

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

TABLE 17-HAWAII (BIG ISLAND) ANTHROPOGENIC EMISSIONS INVENTORY

2005 Inventory 2018 Inventory

Source category

NOx SO2 NOx SO 2

P o int ................................................................................................................. 1 ,0 3 6 4 ,5 5 1 1 ,7 3 6 5 ,2 6 6

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

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

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

A irc ra ft .............................................................................................................. 1 7 7 1 8 2 0 7 2 1

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

W ildfires ........................................................................................................ 1,712 469 1,712 469

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

T o ta l .......................................................................................................... 9 ,3 1 4 6 ,4 1 2 7 ,3 5 2 6 ,6 6 1

3. Four Factor Analysis for NOx Sources

on Maui and the Big Island

As shown in tables 16 and 17, mobile

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

marine) constitute the largest fraction of

base-year emissions on both islands

45 See prevailing winds data from the Western

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

htmlfiles/westwinddir.html#HA WAIl).

(48%). The NOx emissions from these

categories are projected to drop by over

7,100 tpy between 2005 and 2018. These

decreases are largely attributable to a

dramatic reduction in emissions from

on-road mobile sources, resulting from

46 Ibid.

47 See Table VII-1 of the FIP TSD.

the replacement of older, higher

emitting vehicles with new vehicles that

must meet more stringent standards

under the Clean Air Act. In addition to

these requirements for on-road sources,

EPA regulations also require newer non48 See Emissions Inventory chapter of the FIP TSD

for information on the development of these

inventories.

31708

HeinOnline -- 77 Fed. Reg. 31708 2012
Federal Register/Vol. 77, No. 103/Tuesday, May 29, 2012/Proposed Rules

road and marine mobile sources to meet

stricter control requirements.

Collectively, these federal mobile source

requirements will result in substantial

NOx reductions over the course of the

first planning period.

Point sources, and in particular

electric utility units, also comprise a

significant portion of NOx emissions on

both islands. However, considering the

costs of compliance, the projected 20%

net reduction in NOx emissions from

existing regulations and the small

contribution of nitrates to visibility

impairment, EPA does not consider it

reasonable to require additional NOx

controls for point sources in this

planning period.

The two remaining anthropogenic

NOx emissions sources on the islands

are agricultural burning and wildfires.

EPA has evaluated the monitoring data

for the Class I areas and determined that

there is no evidence that agricultural

burning is significantly affecting

visibility at the Class I areas. 49 Wildfires

have been included in the

anthropogenic emissions inventory

because Hawaii DOH and EPA have not

been able to determine if the fires had

natural causes or not. However,

imposing restrictions on wildfires

would not have any appreciable effect,

since they are, by definition, not

intentional.

In sum, taking into consideration the

four RP factors and the relatively small

contribution of NOx to visibility

impairment at Hawaii's Class I areas, we

propose not to require any additional

NOx controls for this implementation

period.

4. Four Factor Analysis for S02

Emissions on Maui

Our analysis shows that existing

requirements under the Clean Air Act

will result in net reductions of

anthropogenic emissions of S02 on

Maui during this first planning period.

So it is reasonable to assume that the

visibility at Haleakala on the best days

is not getting worse. Similarly, with this

drop in emissions, it is reasonable to

assume that the visibility on the worst

days will improve.

a. Mobile Source S0 2 Emissions on

Maui

Mobile source S0 2 emissions on Maui

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

are expected to decrease by 89% under

current regulations, primarily as a result

of reductions in marine emissions due

to the ECA. This control measure is in

addition to the benefits of fleet turnover

as described above in the discussion of

NOx. Given the existing benefits from

the ECA and the fleet turnover benefits

that take into account the four factors,

we propose to determine that no

additional S0 2 reductions from mobile

sources on Maui are needed in order to

show reasonable progress.

b. Point Source S0 2 Emissions on Maui

Point Sources comprise 77% of the

S0 2 emissions on Maui and are

expected to increase slightly by 2018.

However, this increase is more than

offset by the reduction in S0 2 from

mobile source emissions. The principal

point sources on Maui are the Kahului

Power Plant and the Maalaea Power

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

Class I area and its S0 2 emissions are

not expected to impact visibility at

Haleakala. Prevailing winds should also

transport emissions from Kahului away

from Haleakala. However, CAlPUFF

modeling indicates that this facility has

a visibility impact of 0.667 deciviews at

Haleakaa. 5° While this modeling is

based on conservative assumptions that

are unlikely to occur during normal

operations, we believe this level of

modeled impact is sufficient to warrant

further scrutiny of this source under the

four reasonable progress factors.

TABLE 18-MAUI POINT SOURCE EMISSIONS

2005 2018

NOx SO2 NOx SO 2

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

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

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

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

M a u i P ine a p p le C o . ......................................................................................... 8 0 2 4

T ota l .......................................................................................................... 4 ,4 9 2 4 ,5 5 9 4 ,5 9 7 4 ,6 2 5

The first RP factor is costs of

compliance. HECO (the electric utility)

performed a detailed analysis of the cost

of reducing S0 2 emissions at the Hill as

part of the BART analysis for that

source. 51 EPA reviewed and largely

concurred with the results of that

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

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

50 Subject-to-Best Available Retrofit Technology

(BART) Modeling for the State of Hawaii,

Application of the CALPUFF Modeling System,

March 3, 2010, Alpine Geophysics, LLC. This

modeled impact is higher than the BART modeling

would be to reduce the amount of sulfur

in the fuel. However, even that method

is expensive. The lowest cost method

for reducing SO 2 emissions at these

plants is to switch to a fuel with no

more than 10% sulfur by weight. To

estimate the total cost of the converting

this plant to 1% fuel oil and estimate

the impact of those costs on electric

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

51 BART Five-Factor Analysis Prepared for

Hawaiian Electric Light Company, October 2010,

Trinity Consultants.

rates, EPA developed a base case

scenario derived from 2009 operating

conditions. 52 This analysis, which is

summarized in Table 19 below and

further explained in our FIP TSD,

indicates that the cost effectiveness of

this control is approximately $4,200 per

ton of S0 2 reduced.

52 2009 was selected because it was consistent

with the year used in the BART analysis for Hill.

It is also a year where the actual capacity factors

for the electric plants on the Big Island were

comparable to the 4-year average.

31709

HeinOnline -- 77 Fed. Reg. 31709 2012
Federal Register/Vol. 77, No. 103/Tuesday, May 29, 2012/Proposed Rules

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

B a s e lin e W e ig h t % S ...........................................................................................................................................................................

B a se lin e F u e l C o n s u m ptio n [g a l/y r] .....................................................................................................................................................

B a s e lin e E m is s io n s [to n s S 0 2/y r] ........................................................................................................................................................

N e w F u e l W e ig h t % S .........................................................................................................................................................................

C o s t D iff e re n tia l [$ /g a l] ........................................................................................................................................................................

C o n tro lle d E m is s io n s [to n s S 0 2/y r] .....................................................................................................................................................

A n n u a l C o s ts [$ /y r] ..............................................................................................................................................................................

A n n u a l E m issio n R e d u ctio n s [to ns S 0 2/y r] .........................................................................................................................................

C o st E ff ic ie n cy [$/to n S O 2 re d u ce d ] ....................................................................................................................................................

The second RP factor is the time

necessary for compliance. The switch to

a lower sulfur residual fuel oil than is

currently being burned does not require

any capital investment or construction,

but it does require time to get new fuel

contracts into place with the new sulfur

limits. It may take time for the fuel

suppliers to secure the new fuel and it

will take time for the current fuel

inventory to be consumed.

The third and fourth RP factors are

the energy and non-air quality impacts

of control measures and the remaining

useful life of the source. EPA considered

these factors in the context of the

Hawaii Clean Energy Initiative that sets

the goal of 70% clean energy by 2030.

The Initiative includes the 2009 Clean

Energy Omnibus Bill (ACT 155 (09), HB

1464, signed June 25, 2009). This statute

calls for 30% reduction in energy use

via efficiency and increases the

renewable portfolio standard to 40% by

2030. EPA contracted with UNC and ICF

to project the 2018 emissions of power

plants considering the requirements of

the Clean Energy Omnibus Bill. These

projections are compared to the current

2018 projections based on the most

recent Integrated Resource Plan (IRP) for

Hawaii electric utilities. This IRP

predates the 2009 bill and so does not

account for its requirements. Table 20

compares the baseline emission

projections for 2018, derived from the

current IRP and the projections that take

into account the goals of the Clean

Energy Bill.

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

2018 SO 2 Emissions 2018 SO 2 Emissions

IRP Clean Energy Bill

K a h u lu i P o w e r P la nt ................................................................................................................ 2 ,8 2 2 0

M aa laea G ene rating S tatio n .................................................................................................... 923 59 1

The projections based on the goals of

the Clean Energy Bill assume that the

energy conservation and renewable

energy goals will be met in a more or

less even fashion year to year. So, by

2018, most of these projects will be in

place. Under this scenario, Kahului will

cease operations by 2018 and Maalaea

will operate at a significantly lower

capacity factor and/or burn biofuels that

contain much less sulfur than their

current fuel.

c. Conclusion of Reasonable Progress

Analysis for SO 2 Emissions on Maul

Based on the foregoing analysis for

the four RP factors, we propose to

determine that it is not reasonable to

require additional SO 2 controls for point

sources on Maui in this planning

period. In addition, as mentioned above,

electric utility rates in Hawaii are over

three times the national average.

Furthermore, mobile source SO 2

emissions are projected to decrease

significantly on Maui, mostly due to the

ECA. The net result is that overall SO 2

emissions are projected to decrease on

Maui by nearly 8%. EPA proposes to

find that this is a reasonable reduction

for this planning period. Therefore,

based on our consideration of the four

RP factors, EPA proposes to determine

that this level of emissions reduction is

reasonable for this planning period.

5. Four Factor Analysis for SO 2

Emissions on the Big Island (Hawaii)

Unlike on Maui, EPA projects that,

without additional controls, SO 2

emissions on the Big Island will

increase by 3.9% between 2005 and

2018. As noted above, SO 2 is the key

anthropogenic visibility-impairing

pollutant at both of Hawaii's Class I

areas. Therefore, we propose to

determine that additional SO 2 control

measures are needed on the Big Island

in order to ensure reasonable progress

toward the national goal of no

anthropogenic visibility impairment.

a. Mobile Source SO 2 Emissions on the

Big Island (Hawaii)

Mobile source emissions of SO 2 on

the Big Island are projected to drop 91%

under existing regulations, driven

primarily by reductions in marine

emissions due to the ECA. This control

measure is in addition to the benefits of

fleet turnover as described above in the

discussion NOx. Given the existing

benefits from the ECA and the fleet

turnover benefits and taking into

account the four reasonable progress

factors, EPA proposes to determine that

no additional SO 2 reductions from

mobile sources on the Big Island are

needed in order to show reasonable

progress during this first planning

period.

b. Point Source SO 2 Emissions on the

Big Island (Hawaii)

Point sources account for roughly

71% of the anthropogenic SO 2

emissions on the Big Island. See Table

17 above. Virtually all of these

emissions come from electric power

plants. See Table 21 below. Therefore,

EPA considered all of the power plants

on the Big Island as candidates for

additional controls.

Kahului

1.57

19,790,111

2,489

1.00

0.190

1,586

3,760,121

904

4,160

31710

HeinOnline -- 77 Fed. Reg. 31710 2012
Federal Register/Vol. 77, No. 103/Tuesday, May 29, 2012/Proposed Rules

TABLE 21-HAWAII (BIG ISLAND) POINT SOURCE EMISSIONS

2005 2018

NOx SO2 NOx SO 2

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

H ELCO - Puna Pow er Plant ............................................................................ 241 1,345 279 1,556

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

HELCO- Shipm an Power Plant ...................................................................... 38 222 28 166

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

T radew inds Fo rest P roducts, LLC ................................................................... ........................ ........................ 133 15

HELCO - W aim ea Power Plant ....................................................................... 89 5 103 5

T o ta l .......................................................................................................... 1 ,0 3 6 4 ,5 5 1 1 ,7 3 6 5 ,2 6 6

Because of their relatively low emission emission rates and positions close to plants using the CalPUFF computer

rates and distance from the Class I areas, and upwind of Hawaii Volcanoes NP, model. The results are summarized in

EPA eliminated the Keahole and Hill, Shipman and Puna are the focus of Table 22.

Waimea Power Plants and the Hu the review. Alpine Geophysics

Honua Bioenergy facility. Due to their estimated the visibility impact of these

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

Visibility Impact

[delta dv]

HAVO HALE

H ELC O - Kanoelehua H ill G enerating Station ........................................................................................................ 2.334 0.808

H E LC O - P u na P o w e r P la nt .................................................................................................................................... 1 .59 4 0 .35 8

H E LC O - S hipm a n P ow e r P lant .............................................................................................................................. 0 .777 0 .32 1

These plants were also modeled with Therefore, we further analyzed each of analysis. As described previously, the

the same conservative assumptions as these plants in relation to the four RP most cost-effective control measure is to

Kahului. The results for Hill and Puna factors. reduce the amount of sulfur in the fuel.

indicate that these plants may be The first RP factor to consider is the This is also true for Shipman and Puna.

causing visibility impairment at Hawaii cost of compliance. HECO (the electric Table 23 provides the full cost/benefit

Volcanoes. In addition, the results utility) performed a detailed analysis of calculation for the Big Island sources.

indicate that Hill may be contributing to the cost of reducing SO 2 emissions at Based on this analysis, EPA estimates

impairment at Haleakala and Shipman Hill as part of the BART analysis for that that the cost effectiveness of this control

may be contributing to visibility source.53 EPA reviewed and largely is approximately $5,500 per ton of S02

impairment at Hawaii Volcanoes. concurred with the results of that reduced for sources on the Big Island.

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

Hill Shipman Puna

B a se line W e ig ht % S ................................................................................................................... 1 .5 7 1 .5 7 1 .5 7

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

Baseline E m issions [tons S O jyr] ................................................................................................ 2 ,344 282 1,249

N e w F ue l W e ig ht % S ................................................................................................................. 1 .0 0 1 .0 0 1 .0 0

C ost D iffe re ntial [$/ga l] ................................................................................................................ 0 .255 0 .255 0 .255

C ontrolled Em issions [tons SO jyr] ............................................................................................. 1493 180 796

A nnual C osts [$/yr] ...................................................................................................................... $4 ,755 ,904 $571,678 $2 ,532 ,315

Annual Em ission Reductions [tons SO jyr] ................................................................................. 851 102 454

Cost Efficiency [$/ton SO 2 reduced] ............................................................................................ $5,587 $5,583 $5,583

T o ta l A n n u a l C o s t ................................................................................................................. $ 7 ,8 5 9 ,8 9 ........................ ........................

T ota l A n n ua l E m issio n s R e d uctio n ...................................................................................... 1 ,4 0 7 ........................ ........................

In Table 23, most of the assumptions

are the same as in Table 19, but the cost

differential is a bit higher due to the

extra transport costs. We added

53 BART Five-Factor Analysis Prepared for

Hawaiian Electric Light Company, October 2010,

Trinity Consultants.

0.065 $/gal to the estimate for a total of

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

derived from the six-year (2006-2011)

cost differential between residual fuel

oil delivered to Maui and the same oil

delivered to the Big Island.

With these assumptions, EPA

estimates an annual increase in fuel

31711

HeinOnline -- 77 Fed. Reg. 31711 2012
Federal Register/Vol. 77, No. 103/Tuesday, May 29, 2012/Proposed Rules

costs of over $7.9 million/year. EPA

contracted with the energy economics

consulting firm Energy Strategies to

estimate the impact of these increased

fuel costs on electric rates. 54 Based on

its analysis, these increased costs would

translate into a roughly 2% increase in

retail electric rates on the Big Island.

This impact is higher than just

controlling Hill alone because applying

the controls to all three sources of

concern would result in higher fuel

costs for the system. The benefit of this

change would be a reduction in SO 2

emissions of at least 1,400 tons per year.

The second factor to consider is the

time necessary for compliance. The

considerations here are the same as for

Maui.

The third and fourth factors to

consider are the energy and non-air

quality impacts of control measures and

the remaining useful life of the source.

As part of our consideration of these

two factors, EPA is taking into account

the anticipated results of the Clean

Energy Bill described above. Table 24

compares the emission projections for

2018 based on the IRP and the

projections that take into account the

goals of the Clean Energy Bill. 5 5

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

[Tons per year]

2018 SO 2 2018 SO 2

emissions emissions

IRP Clean Energy

Bill

H E LC O - Kanoelehua H ill G enerating Station ........................................................................................................ 3,264 765

H E LC O - P u na P o w e r P la nt .................................................................................................................................... 1 ,56 6 36 5

H E LC O - S h ip m a n P ow e r P la nt .............................................................................................................................. 16 6 0

Under the Clean Energy Bill scenario,

Shipman is projected to cease

operations by 2018 and Hill and Puna

are projected to be operating at a

significantly lower capacity factor and/

or burning biofuels with a much lower

sulfur content than their current fuel.

However, as noted above, these

projections are based on optimistic

assumptions about implementation of

the Clean Energy Bill. In addition, these

requirements are not federally

enforceable. Therefore, we cannot rely

upon these projected reductions to

demonstrate reasonable progress.

c. Conclusion of Reasonable Progress

Analysis for SO 2 Emissions on the Big

Island (Hawaii)

In summary, without further control,

emissions of SO 2 on the Big Island are

projected to increase by nearly 4%

between 2005 and 2018. Therefore,

additional, federally enforceable SO 2

reductions are needed on the Big Island

to ensure reasonable progress. EPA has

identified the fuel oil-fired boilers at

Hill, Shipman and Puna as appropriate

sources for further control because they

are upwind of the Hawaii Volcanoes NP,

have high SO 2 emissions and lack

modern pollution controls. Based on our

analysis of the four RP factors, EPA

believes that the SO 2 control measure

for these sources should be structured

so that it can be achieved through

increased energy efficiency and

increased reliance on renewable energy.

Therefore, EPA is proposing to cap

total emissions at the fuel oil-fired

boilers at Hill, Shipman and Puna at

3,550 tons of SO 2 per year, beginning in

January 1, 2018. This cap was derived

from EPA's analysis of the costs of

switching these units to 1% sulfur fuel

as shown in Table 23 and is equivalent

to a reduction of 1,400 tons of SO 2 per

year from the total projected 2018

emissions from these units. EPA is

structuring this control requirement to

allow HECO to minimize costs. If HECO

implements the Hawaii Clean Energy

Bill on schedule, it should be able to

meet this cap with no additional costs

to the ratepayers. If the cap has to be

met with a lower sulfur fuel oil, HECO

should be able to meet this cap at a cost

of roughly $7.9 million/year. We are

taking the other three factors into

account by structuring the control

requirement to be consistent with the

State's goals for energy conservation and

reduced dependence on fossil fuels.

Once this control measure is in place,

total S0 2 emissions on Big Island will

decrease by at least 17% in the first

planning period. Considering the four

factors as shown above, the EPA

considers this reduction to constitute

reasonable progress toward the goal of

eliminating anthropogenic visibility

impairment at the Class I areas.

d. Benefits of the Emission Control Area

on Emissions from In Transit Marine

Vessels

In addition to reducing emissions

from ships in and near ports, the ECA

also significantly reduces emissions

from ships traveling from port-to-port.

The projected effect of the ECA on this

category of marine emissions is shown

in Table 25. EPA considered this as

supplemental information when

determining whether reasonable

progress is being made with existing

regulations.

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

54 Fuel Cost Screening Tool (rl 4-18-12), Energy

Strategies Incorporated, April 18, 2012.

55 Clean Energy Bill estimates from Email from titled: "Hawaii Emissions

Juanita Haydel, ICF Corporation to Greg Nudd, U.S. Values Revised 040412 FTC.xlsx".

EPA Region 9, April 4, 2012, with spreadsheet

31712

HeinOnline -- 77 Fed. Reg. 31712 2012
Federal Register/Vol. 77, No. 103/Tuesday, May 29, 2012/Proposed Rules

6. Reasonable Progress Goals-2018

Visibility Projections

As explained above, there is no

modeling available for this planning

period that can reliably predict the

change in visibility due to changes in

the emission inventory for all sources

(shipping, mobile sources, point

sources, etc.). 56 In the absence of

reliable visibility modeling for 2018,

EPA is using the island-specific

inventories as a surrogate for judging

whether reasonable progress is being

made.

In order to show how the future

emission changes may affect the aerosol

levels in each of the Class 1 areas, EPA

estimated the effect that the changes in

the island-specific inventories for NON

and S02 will have on the levels of

nitrate and sulfate for each of the Class

1 areas. The details of this analysis are

set forth in the TSD.

At Hawaii Volcanoes NP, the

projected visibility for 2018 is slightly

worse without the proposed FIP control

measures. With the proposed FIP

control measure, there is a slight

improvement in visibility conditions

compared to the year 2005 for both the

20% best and 20% worst days. At

Haleakala NP, there is a slight

improvement in visibility conditions

compared to the year 2005 for both the

20% best and 20% worst days.

7. Visibility Improvement Compared to

URP and Number of Years to Reach

Natural Conditions

The amount of improvement needed

to achieve the URP for 2018 at Haleakala

NP is 1.38 delta deciview. Based on the

projections of visibility, discussed

above, the amount of improvement by

2018 would be 0.29 delta deciview. This

would result in a 2018 level of visibility

of 13.0 deciview at Haleakala.

The amount of improvement needed

to achieve the URP for 2018 for Hawaii

NP is 2.73 delta deciview. Based on the

projections of visibility, discussed

above, the amount of improvement by

2018 would be 0.18 delta deciview. This

would result in a 2018 level of visibility

of 18.7 deciview.

Therefore, the URP will not be met at

either NP. Based on our analysis of the

four reasonable progress factors above,

we propose to determine that the rate of

progress for the implementation plan to

attain natural conditions by 2064 is not

reasonable and that our progress goals

are reasonable.

EPA has calculated the number of

years it would take to reach natural

56 As described above, there is acceptable

modeling for point sources for the BART and the

reasonable progress analysis for point sources.

conditions, based on the rate of

visibility improvement in this first

planning period. Because the baseline

conditions include the effect of the

emissions from the volcano, the

calculation of number of years to reach

natural conditions by control of

anthropogenic emission does not

represent a realistic scenario in this

case. Based on the projected rate of

improvement at Haleakala of 0.021

deciview per year, natural conditions

would be met in 280 years. Based upon

the projected rate of improvement at

Hawaii Volcanoes NP, natural

conditions would be met in over 800

years. If the volcano stops erupting,

natural conditions would be met

significantly sooner.

G. Long-Term Strategy

1. Interstate Consultation Requirement

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

a state has emissions that are reasonably

anticipated to contribute to visibility

impairment in any mandatory Class I

Federal area located in another state or

states, each of the relevant states must

consult with the other(s). Hawaii lies

approximately 2,390 miles southwest of

the Continental United States and has

been included by EPA in the regional

haze program, "because of the potential

for emissions from sources within [its]

borders to contribute to regional haze

impairment in Class I areas also located

within [Hawaii's] own jurisdiction," 64

FR at 35720 (emphasis added).

Therefore, we propose to determine that

emissions from Hawaii are not

reasonably anticipated to contribute to

visibility impairment in any mandatory

Class I Federal area located in another

state or states. We also propose to

determine that no emissions from any

other state are reasonably anticipated to

contribute to visibility impairment in

either of Hawaii's mandatory Class I

Federal areas.

The Regional Haze Rule also requires

any state that has participated in a

regional planning process, to "ensure it

has included all measures needed to

achieve its apportionment of emission

reduction obligations agreed upon

through that process" and to

demonstrate the technical basis for this

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

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

the state of Hawaii participated in the

WRAP. The WRAP did not identify any

obligation for emission reductions on

the part of Hawaii. Therefore, we

propose to determine that no additional

emissions reductions are necessary in

Hawaii to meet the progress goal for any

mandatory Class I Federal area outside

of Hawaii.

2. Identification of Anthropogenic

Sources of Visibility Impairment

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

States are required to identify all

anthropogenic sources of visibility

impairment considered in developing

the long-term strategy, including major

and minor stationary sources, mobile

sources, and area sources. As explained

in section III.C above, we have

considered each of these categories in

developing our long-term strategy.

3. Other Long Term-Strategy

Requirements

The RHR requires that a state consider

the following factors in developing an

LTS: (a) Emission reductions due to

ongoing air pollution control programs,

including measures to address RAVI; (b)

measures to mitigate the impacts of

construction activities; (c) emissions

limitations and schedules for

compliance to achieve the RPG; (d)

source retirement and replacement

schedules; (e) smoke management

techniques for agricultural and forestry

management purposes including plans

as currently exist within the state for

these purposes; (f) enforceability of

emissions limitations and control

measures; and (g) the anticipated net

effect on visibility due to projected

changes in point, area, and mobile

source emissions over the period

addressed by the LTS. 40 CFR

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

factors below. 57

a. Emissions Reductions Due to Ongoing

Air Pollution Programs

Our LTS incorporates emission

reductions due to a number of ongoing

air pollution control programs.

i. Prevention of Significant Deterioration

Rules

One of the primary regulatory tools

for addressing visibility impairment

from industrial sources under the Act is

the Prevention of Significant

Deterioration (PSD) program. The PSD

requirements apply to new major

sources and major sources making a

major modification in attainment

areas. 58 Among other things, the PSD

57 Our analysis of these factors relies in part on

work performed by our contractors, UNC and ICF,

which is summarized in a document entitled,

"Technical Analysis for Arizona and Hawaii

Regional Haze FIPs: Task 17: Information and

Analysis to Support Hawaii's Long-Term Strategy"

(April 13, 2012) (hereinafter "Hawaii LTS Report").

The Hawaii LTS Report is available in the docket

for this action.

58 Nonattainment New Source Review (NSR)

requirements apply to new major sources and major

sources making major modifications in

nonattainment areas. Hawaii has no nonattainment

Continued

31713

HeinOnline -- 77 Fed. Reg. 31713 2012
Federal Register/Vol. 77, No. 103/Tuesday, May 29, 2012/Proposed Rules

permit program is designed to protect

air quality and visibility in Class 1

Areas by requiring best available control

technology (BACT) and involving the

public in permit decisions. EPA has

promulgated a PSD FIP for Hawaii to

address the CAA's PSD requirements.

See 40 CFR 52.632(b) ("PSD FIP"). DOH

has been delegated authority to

implement this FIP since 1983. The FIP

provides procedures, including

requirements for input from the relevant

FLM, for considering potential visibility

impacts to Class I areas from new major

stationary source or major modifications

of existing major stationary sources. See

40 CFR 52.21(p)(1).

ii. Reasonably Attributable Visibility

Impairment Rules

EPA has promulgated a FIP for

Hawaii, which incorporates the

provisions of 40 CFR 52.26, 52.27,

52.28, 52.29, to address RAVI in Hawaii.

See 40 CFR 52.633. There have been no

certifications of RAVI in the Hawaii

Class I areas, nor are any Hawaii sources

affected by the RAVI provisions at this

time.

iii. On-going Implementation of Federal

Mobile Source Rules

Mobile source NOx and SO 2

emissions are expected to decrease in

Hawaii from 2002 to 2018, due to

several existing federal mobile source

regulations. As shown in Table 26, these

rules will result in significant

reductions in NOx and SO 2 emissions

from both on road and non-road mobile

sources.

TABLE 26-STATEWIDE INVENTORY OF NOx AND S0 2 EMISSIONS FROM ON-ROAD AND NON-ROAD MOBILE SOURCES:

2005, 2008 AND 201859

iv. North American Emissions Control

Area

An additional air pollution control

program that will limit emissions of

visibility-impairing pollutants in Hawaii

is the North American Emissions

Control Area (NA ECA). The United

States Government, together with

Canada and France, established the NA

ECA under the auspices of Annex VI of

the International Convention for the

Prevention of Pollution from Ships

(MARPOL Annex VI), a treaty

developed by the International Maritime

Organization. This ECA will require use

of lower sulfur fuels in ships operating

within 200 nautical miles of the

majority of the U.S. and Canadian

coastline, including the U.S. Gulf Coast

and Hawaii, beginning in August 2012.

The ECA is expected to significantly

reduce both NOx and SO 2 emissions

from marine sources in Hawaii during

the first implementation period. These

reductions are reflected in Table 27.

TABLE 27-STATEWIDE INVENTORY OF NOx AND S0 2 EMISSIONS FROM MARINE SOURCES: 2005, 2008 AND 201860

b. Measures to Mitigate the Impacts of

Construction Activities

Potential sources of emissions from

construction activities include exhaust

from fuel-burning equipment on the

site; vehicles working on the site,

delivering materials, and hauling away

excavate; employee vehicles; and

fugitive dust from exposed earth,

material stockpiles, and vehicles on

roadways, especially unpaved site

accesses. These activities can result in

emissions of NOx, SOx, particulate

areas at this time and therefore the nonattainment

NSR requirements are not relevant.

59 Excerpted from FIP TSD Table II-3. 6 0 Excerpted from FIP TSD Table II-3.

61 See Hawaii LTS Report, §§ 2.2.

matter (PM10 and PM 2.

5 from engine

exhaust and as fugitive dust from

roadways and material handling) and

primary organic aerosols.61

Hawaii DOH regulates emissions of

air pollutants, including construction

emissions, under Chapter 11-60.1 of

Hawaii Administrative Rules (HAR).

These rules generally prohibit the

emission of any "regulated air

pollutant" without the written approval

of DOH. HAR § 11-60.1-2.62 "Regulated

air pollutant" is defined to include,

among other things, NOx, VOCs and

6 2 The Hawaii SIP currently contains an earlier

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

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

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

(April 27, 2012).

63 The Hawaii SIP currently contains an earlier

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

"any air pollutant for which a national

or state ambient air quality standard has

been promulgated" (e.g., S0 2, PM1 o and

PM 2 .5). HAR § 11-60.1-2.63 Fugitive

dust emissions are specifically regulated

under HAR § 11-60.1-33,64 which

requires the use of "reasonable

precautions" to mitigate the impacts of

visible fugitive dust. "Fugitive dust" is

defined as "the emission of solid

airborne particulate matter from any

source other than combustion." HAR

§ 11-60.1-1.

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

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

(April 27, 2012).

64 The Hawaii SIP contains an earlier version of

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

(2011).

31714

HeinOnline -- 77 Fed. Reg. 31714 2012
Federal Register/Vol. 77, No. 103/Tuesday, May 29, 2012/Proposed Rules

In addition to fugitive dust, another

potential source of visibility-impairing

pollutants from construction activities is

fuel-burning construction equipment

and vehicles. Emissions from

construction equipment are reflected in

the non-road mobile source category of

the Hawaii Emissions Inventory, 65

while emissions from trucks and other

construction-related vehicles are

reflected in the on-road category. 66 As

described in section III.C above,

statewide NON and SO 2 from the onroad and non-road mobile source

categories are expected to decrease

significantly between 2005 and 2018, as

new federal mobile source regulations

are implemented. In addition to the

federal mobile source regulations,

emissions from motor vehicles are

regulated under HAR § 11-60.1-34.67

Given the significant decreases in this

category expected from ongoing

pollution control measures, we propose

that no additional measures are needed

to mitigate the impact of construction

activities during this time period.

However, as noted above, coarse mass

contributes to 9% of the visibility

degradation on the 20% worst days and

17% on the 20% best days at Haleakala.

It is unknown how much of this coarse

mass derives from fugitive dust

emissions. Therefore, for the next

planning period, a detailed study of the

source contribution to coarse mass and

soil measured at the Haleakala Crater

Class 1 area monitors is needed.

Depending on the results of this study,

further regulation of fugitive dust

emissions, including construction

emissions, may be appropriate.

c. Emission Limitations and Schedules

for Compliance

As explained above, we are proposing

to place a 3,550 tpy cap on SO 2

emissions from the residual fuel-fired

boilers at Hill, Shipman and Puna on

the Big Island, which represents a 1,400

tpy reduction from the 2018 projected

emission from these units. We propose

that this emission limit, together with

the ongoing requirements described

above, will be sufficient to meet the

65 "Final Emission Inventory Report: Data

Population for Air System for Hawaii Emissions

Data (AirSHED)", Environ International

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

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

66 "Technical Analysis for Hawaii's Regional

Haze FIP Report-Task 16: On-Road Mobile

Emissions Inventory", ICF International, March 23,

2012.

67 The Hawaii SIP currently contains an earlier

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

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

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

(April 27, 2012).

RPGs for the first implementation

period.

d. Sources Retirement and Replacement

Schedules

In order to assess potential source

retirements and replacements during the

first implementation period, our

contractor, ICF, reviewed the last set of

Integrated Resource Plans (IRPs) for

HECO and its subsidiaries. In its IRP,

HECO indicated that Wauai Units 3 and

4 would be placed into emergency

reserve or retired in 2011 and 2014,

respectively. HELCO, MECO, and Kauai

Island Utility Cooperative (KIUC) had

no plans to retire any of their units in

their last IRP.68

It should be noted, however, that

existing state legislation and voluntary

measures by the Hawaiian utilities are

likely to result in further reductions in

oil-fired electricity generating units in

Hawaii by 2018. In particular, Hawaii's

current Renewable Portfolio Standard

(RPS) requires each electric utility

company in the state to achieve the

following percentages of renewable

electrical energy sales:

* 10% of its net electricity sales by

December 31, 2010;

* 15% of its net electricity sales by

December 31, 2015;

* 25% of its net electricity sales by

December 31, 2020; and

* 40% of its net electricity sales by

December 31, 2030.69

Although the Hawaii RPS is a state law

and is not federally enforceable, it is

likely to result in significant reductions

in SO 2 and NON emissions over the next

twenty years, as existing fossil fuel-fired

generation is replaced with renewables.

In addition, as part of the Hawaii

Clean Energy Initiative, the State of

Hawaii, Division of Consumer Advocacy

of the Department of Commerce &

Consumer Affairs, and the Hawaiian

Electric Companies have entered into an

"Energy Agreement", which includes an

extensive list of renewable energy

commitments and related provisions.70

Among other things, the Agreement

provides that, "the utilities will 'retire'

the older and less efficient fossil-fired

firm capacity generating units by

removing such units from normal daily

operating service as expeditiously as

6 8 Technical Analysis for Arizona and Hawaii

Regional Haze FIPs: Task 17: Information and

Analysis to Support Hawaii's Long-Term Strategy

University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, ICF

International, April 13, 2012. 6 9

HRS § 269-92.

70 "Energy Agreement Among the State of Hawaii,

Division of Consumer Advocacy of the Department

of Commerce & Consumer Affairs, and Hawaiian

Electric Companies." (Oct. 2008) (hereinafter

"Energy Agreement").

possible." 71 Although this is not a

federally enforceable requirement, we

expect that the output of the utilities'

existing oil-fired units will decrease

over the period of the first

implementation period and will be

replaced by renewable energy

generation.

e. Agricultural and Forestry Smoke

Management Techniques

Hawaii's agricultural fire emissions

come from crop waste combustion of

over roughly 30,000 acres of sugarcane,

which is cultivated mostly on Maui.

Burn permits are required under HAR

§ 11-60.1-53 72 and records must be

kept in accordance with such permits

under HAR § 11-60.1-56.73 While there

is no smoke management plan as such,

widespread and persistent haze

conditions are used as a criterion for

establishment of a "no-burn" period by

Hawaii DOH. See HAR § 11-60.1-55.74

Given our focus on SO 2 as the dominant

visibility-impairing pollutant for this

implementation period, and our finding

that there is no evidence of agricultural

burning contributing to haze at Class I

areas, 75 we propose to determine that no

further controls on agricultural burning

or forest fires are reasonable at this time.

f. Enforceability of Control Measures

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

Regional Haze Rule requires us to

ensure that emission limitations and

control measures used to meet RPGs are

enforceable. As described above, we are

proposing that cumulative SO 2

emissions from the residual fuel fired

boilers at the Hill, Shipman and Puna

plants be limited to 3,550 tons per year

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

propose that enforceability of this

control measure will be ensured through

the following measurement,

recordkeeping and reporting

requirements:

The sources will be required to

measure the sulfur content (weight

percent), heat value (million British

thermal units per gallon (MMBtu/gal))

and total gallons of fuel burned at each

of the affected units. Based on these

71 Section 11 of the Energy Agreement.

72 The Hawaii SIP currently contains an earlier

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

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

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

(April 27, 2012).

73 The Hawaii SIP currently contains an earlier

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

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

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

(April 27, 2012).

74 The Hawaii SIP contains an earlier version of

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

(2011).

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

31715

HeinOnline -- 77 Fed. Reg. 31715 2012
Federal Register/Vol. 77, No. 103/Tuesday, May 29, 2012/Proposed Rules

parameters, the S02 emissions for each

unit will be calculated on a monthly

basis, then the rolling 12-month average

of the total emissions for all units will

be calculated. All of this information

must be recorded and these records

must be maintained for at least five

years. In addition, all of this information

must be reported to Hawaii DOH and

EPA on an annual basis. Finally, any

exceedance of the 3,550 tpy cumulative

emission limit for these 5 units must be

reported to Hawaii DOH and EPA

within 30 days.

g. Anticipated Net Effect on Visibility

Due to Projected Changes in Point, Area,

and Mobile Source Emissions over the

next 10 years

As described above, total statewide

anthropogenic emissions of NON and

VOC are projected to decrease between

2005 and 2018. However, anthropogenic

SO2 emissions are expected to increase

between 2005 and 2018, largely due to

increased emissions from point sources.

Our analysis of the monitoring data

indicates that visibility impacts of SO2

emissions are of greater concern in

Hawaii's Class I areas than the impacts

of either NON or VOC. The increase in

anthropogenic S02 emissions indicates

that some additional pollution

reductions are needed to ensure

reasonable progress toward the goal of

eliminating anthropogenic visibility

impairment in Hawaii's mandatory class

I areas. Our proposal to achieve these

reductions is explained in section III.F.5

of this notice.

H. Coordination of RAVI and Regional

Haze Requirements

Our visibility regulations direct states

to coordinate their RAVI LTS and

monitoring provisions with those for

regional haze, as explained in section

IV.G, above. Under our RAVI

regulations, the RAVI portion of a state

SIP must address any integral vistas

identified by the FLMs pursuant to 40

CFR 51.304. See 40 CFR 51.302. An

integral vista is defined in 40 CFR

51.301 as a "view perceived from within

the mandatory Class I federal area of a

specific landmark or panorama located

outside the boundary of the mandatory

Class I federal area." Visibility in any

mandatory Class I Federal area includes

any integral vista associated with that

area. The FLMs did not identify any

integral vistas in Hawaii. In addition,

there have been no certifications of

RAVI in the Hawaii Class I areas, nor are

any Hawaii sources affected by the

RAVI provisions.

Because Hawaii has not submitted a

SIP to address RAVI, EPA previously

promulgated a FIP for Hawaii, which

incorporates the provisions of 40 CFR

52.26, 52.27, 52.28, 52.29 to address

RAVI. We propose to find that the

Regional Haze FIP appropriately

supplements and augments EPA's FIP

for RAVI visibility provisions by

updating the monitoring and LTS

provisions to address regional haze. We

discuss the relevant monitoring

provisions further below.

L Monitoring Strategy

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

FIP contain a monitoring strategy for

measuring, characterizing, and reporting

regional haze visibility impairment that

is representative of all mandatory Class

I Federal areas within the state. This

monitoring strategy must be coordinated

with the monitoring strategy required in

40 CFR 51.305 for RAVI. As 40 CFR

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

requirement may be met through

participation in the IMPROVE network.

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

the establishment of any additional

monitoring sites or equipment needed to

assess whether RPGs to address regional

haze for all mandatory Class I Federal

areas within the state are being

achieved. Consistent with EPA's

monitoring regulations for RAVI and

regional haze, EPA will rely on the

IMPROVE network for compliance

purposes, in addition to any RAVI

monitoring that may be needed in the

future. Further information on

monitoring methods and monitor

locations can be found in the docket.76 77

The most recent report also can be

found in the docket. 78 Therefore, we

propose to find that we have satisfied

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

enumerated in this paragraph.

Currently there are two IMPROVE

monitoring sites operating in or near the

Haleakala NP. The Haleakala (HALE1)

IMPROVE monitoring site is located

outside of the Haleakala NP near the

Maui Central Valley, at an elevation of

1153 meters. The HALE1 IMPROVE

monitoring site began operation at end

of 2000, and will end operation in May,

2012. The Haleakala Crater (HACR1)

IMPROVE monitoring site is at the

park's Western boundary, at an

76 "Visibility Monitoring Guidance," EPA-454/R99-003, June 1999, http://www.epa.gov/ttn/amtic/

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

77 "Guidance for Tracking Progress Under the

Regional Haze Rule," EPA-454/B-03-004,

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

ttncaaal/ti/memoranda/rh tpurhr gd.pdf. Figure

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

Table A-2 lists Class I areas and corresponding

monitors.

78 "Spatial and Seasonal Patterns and Temporal

Variability of Haze and its Constituents in the

United States," Report V, ISSN 0737-5352-87, June

2011.

elevation of 2158 meters. The HACR1

IMPROVE monitoring site began

operation in 2007. In this proposal, EPA

is proposing to use monitoring data

from the HALE1 monitoring site as a

basis for establishing baseline visibility,

because the HACR1 site was not yet in

operation for the base year time period

of 2000-2004. Future regional haze

planning efforts need to be based on

data collected at the HACR1 site.

Hawaii DOH has prepared two reports

comparing the two IMPROVE

monitoring sites at Haleakala NP, 7 9

including a detailed comparison of

organic and elemental carbon data at the

two sites. 80 The reports find that the

most significant difference between data

measured at the two sites appears to be

that the HALE1 site has higher levels of

organic and elemental carbon. The

levels of the other species are generally

lower at the HACR1 IMPROVE

monitoring site than at the HALE1

monitoring site. The reports conclude

that, based on the available data, the

HACRi IMPROVE monitoring site is

more representative of visibility

conditions within the Haleakala NP

than the HALE1 IMPROVE monitoring

site.

J. Federal Land Manager Consultation

and Coordination

Under section 169A(d) of the Clean

Air Act, we are required to consult with

the appropriate FLM(s) before holding a

public hearing on the Hawaii Regional

Haze FIP. We must also include a

summary of the FLMs' conclusions and

recommendations in this notice. Both

EPA and Hawaii DOH have consulted

informally with the FLMs throughout

the development of the Hawaii Regional

Haze FIP. Most recently, we consulted

with the FLMs by phone on March 26

and April 5, 2012.

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

specifies the regional haze FIP must

provide procedures for continuing

consultation with the FLMs on the

implementation of the visibility

protection program required by 40 CFR

subpart P, including development and

review of implementation plan revisions

and 5-year progress reports, and on the

implementation of other programs

having the potential to contribute to

impairment of visibility in mandatory

Class I Federal areas. We intend to

continue to consult with the FLMs

79 Comparison of Haleakala NP HALE1 and

HACR1 IMPROVE Monitoring Site 2007-2008 Data

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

of Health, Clean Air Branch.

80 Review of VIEWS2.0 2009-2010 Haleakala

National Park Organic and Elemental Carbon Data,

March 30, 2012, State of Hawaii, Department of

Health, Clean Air Branch.

31716

HeinOnline -- 77 Fed. Reg. 31716 2012
Federal Register/Vol. 77, No. 103/Tuesday, May 29, 2012/Proposed Rules

regarding all aspects of the visibility

protection program and we encourage

Hawaii to do the same.

IV. Proposed Action

EPA is proposing to establish an

emissions cap of 3,550 tons Of SO 2 per

year from the fuel oil-fired boilers at

Hill, Shipman and Puna, beginning in

January 1, 2018. This represents a

reduction of 1,400 tons per year from

the total projected 2018 annual

emissions of SO 2 from these facilities.

We propose to determine that this

control measure, in conjunction with

SO 2 and NOx emissions control

requirements that are already in place,

will ensure that reasonable progress is

made during this first planning period

toward the national goal of no

anthropogenic visibility impairment by

2064 at Hawaii's two Class I areas.

V. Statutory and Executive Order

Reviews

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory

Planning and Review

This proposed action is not a "significant regulatory action" under

the terms of Executive Order 12866 (58

FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and is

therefore not subject to review under

Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 (76

FR 3821, January 21, 2011). The

proposed Hawaii Regional Haze FIP

requires implementation of emissions

controls for SO 2 on specific units at

three sources. Since EPA is proposing

direct emission controls on selected

units at only three sources, the Hawaii

Regional Haze FIP is not a rule of

general applicability.

B. Paperwork Reduction Act

This proposed action does not impose

an information collection burden under

the provisions of the Paperwork

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

Under the Paperwork Reduction Act, a "collection of information" is defined as

a requirement for "answers to * * *

identical reporting or recordkeeping

requirements imposed on ten or more

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

Because the proposed FIP applies to just

three facilities, the Paperwork

Reduction Act does not apply. See 5

CFR 1320(c).

Burden means the total time, effort, or

financial resources expended by persons

to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose

or provide information to or for a

Federal agency. This includes the time

needed to review instructions; develop,

acquire, install, and utilize technology

and systems for the purposes of

collecting, validating, and verifying

information, processing and

maintaining information, and disclosing

and providing information; adjust the

existing ways to comply with any

previously applicable instructions and

requirements; train personnel to be able

to respond to a collection of

information; search data sources;

complete and review the collection of

information; and transmit or otherwise

disclose the information.

An agency may not conduct or

sponsor, and a person is not required to

respond to a collection of information

unless it displays a currently valid

Office of Management and Budget

(OMB) control number. The OMB

control numbers for our regulations in

40 CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)

generally requires an agency to prepare

a regulatory flexibility analysis of any

rule subject to notice and comment

rulemaking requirements under the

Administrative Procedure Act or any

other statute unless the agency certifies

that the rule will not have a significant

economic impact on a substantial

number of small entities. Small entities

include small businesses, small

organizations, and small governmental

jurisdictions.

For purposes of assessing the impacts

of today's proposed rule on small

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

small business as defined by the Small

Business Administration's (SBA)

regulations at 13 CFR 121.201; (2) a

small governmental jurisdiction that is a

government of a city, county, town,

school district or special district with a

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

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

owned and operated and is not

dominant in its field.

After considering the economic

impacts of this proposed action on small

entities, I certify that this proposed

action will not have a significant

economic impact on a substantial

number of small entities. The three

sources in question are electric

generating plants that are owned by the

Hawaii Electric Light Company, Inc.

(HELCO), which is an electric utility

subsidiary of HECO. Pursuant to 13 CFR

121.201, footnote 1, an electric utility

firm is small if, including its affiliates,

it is primarily engaged in the generation,

transmission, and/or distribution of

electric energy for sale and its total

electric output for the preceding fiscal

year did not exceed 4 million megawatt

hours (MWH). In the fiscal year ended

December 31, 2011, HELCO generated or

purchased a total of 1,186.6 MWH. 81

Therefore, it is not a small business.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

(UMRA)

This rule does not contain a Federal

mandate that may result in expenditures

that exceed the inflation-adjusted

UMRA threshold of $100 million by

State, local, or Tribal governments or

the private sector in any 1 year. Thus,

this rule is not subject to the

requirements of sections 202 or 205 of

UMRA.

This rule is also not subject to the

requirements of section 203 of UMRA

because it contains no regulatory

requirements that might significantly or

uniquely affect small governments.

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

The proposed Hawaii Regional Haze

FIP does not have federalism

implications. This action will not have

substantial direct effects on the States,

on the relationship between the national

government and the States, or on the

distribution of power and

responsibilities among the various

levels of government, as specified in

Executive Order 13132. In this action,

EPA is fulfilling its statutory duty under

CAA Section 110(c) to promulgate a

Regional Haze FIP following its finding

that Hawaii had failed to submit a

regional haze SIP. Thus, Executive

Order 13132 does not apply to this

action. In the spirit of Executive Order

13132, and consistent with EPA policy

to promote communications between

EPA and State and local governments,

EPA specifically solicits comment on

this proposed rule from State and local

officials.

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation

and Coordination With Indian Tribal

Governments

This proposed rule does not have

tribal implications, as specified in

Executive Order 13175. It will not have

substantial direct effects on tribal

governments. Thus, Executive Order

13175 does not apply to this rule.

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of

Children From Environmental Health

Risks and Safety Risks

EPA interprets EO 13045 as applying

only to those regulatory actions that

concern health or safety risks, such that

the analysis required under section

5-501 of the EO has the potential to

influence the regulation. This action is

not subject to EO 13045 because it

81 Hawaiian Electric Industries, Inc. and Hawaiian

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

year ended December 31, 2011 "Generation

Statistics."

31717

HeinOnline -- 77 Fed. Reg. 31717 2012
Federal Register/Vol. 77, No. 103/Tuesday, May 29, 2012/Proposed Rules

implements specific standards

established by Congress in statutes.

However, to the extent this proposed

rule will limit emissions of S02, the rule

will have a beneficial effect on

children's health by reducing air

pollution.

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions

Concerning Regulations That

Significantly Affect Energy Supply,

Distribution, or Use

This action is not subject to Executive

Order 13211 (66 FR 28355 (May 22,

2001)), because it is not a significant

regulatory action under Executive Order

12866.

I. National Technology Transfer and

Advancement Act

Section 12 of the National Technology

Transfer and Advancement Act

(NTTAA) of 1995 requires Federal

agencies to evaluate existing technical

standards when developing a new

regulation. To comply with NTTAA,

EPA must consider and use "voluntary

consensus standards" (VCS) if available

and applicable when developing

programs and policies unless doing so

would be inconsistent with applicable

law or otherwise impractical. EPA

believes that VCS are inapplicable to

this action. Today's action does not

require the public to perform activities

conducive to the use of VCS.

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal

Actions To Address Environmental

Justice in Minority Populations and

Low-Income Populations

Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629,

February 16, 1994), establishes federal

executive policy on environmental

justice. Its main provision directs

federal agencies, to the greatest extent

practicable and permitted by law, to

make environmental justice part of their

mission by identifying and addressing,

as appropriate, disproportionately high

and adverse human health or

environmental effects of their programs,

policies, and activities on minority

populations and low-income

populations in the United States.

We have determined that this

proposed rule, if finalized, will not have

disproportionately high and adverse

human health or environmental effects

on minority or low-income populations

because it increases the level of

environmental protection for all affected

populations without having any

disproportionately high and adverse

human health or environmental effects

on any population, including any

minority or low-income population.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

Air pollution control, Environmental

protection, Intergovernmental relations,

Particulate matter, Reporting and

recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur

oxides.

Dated: May 14, 2012.

Jared Blumenfeld,

Regional Administrator, Region 9.

For the reasons stated in the

preamble, part 52 of title 40, chapter I,

of the Code of Federal Regulations is

proposed to be amended as follows:

PART 52-[AMENDED]

1. The authority citation for Part 52

continues to read as follows:

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

Subpart M-Hawaii

2. Section 52.633 is amended by

adding paragraph (d) to read as follows:

§52.633 Visibility protection.

(d) Regional Haze Plan Provisions.

(1) Applicability. This paragraph (d)

applies to the following electric

generating units (EGUs) and boilers:

Kanoelehua Hill Generating Station, Hill

5 and Hill 6; Puna Power Plant, Boiler

1; Shipman Power Plant, Boiler S-3 and

Boiler S-4.

(2) Definitions. Terms not defined

below shall have the meaning given to

them in the Clean Air Act or EPA's

regulations implementing the Clean Air

Act. For purposes of this paragraph (d):

S0 2 means sulfur dioxide.

Owner/operator means any person

who owns, leases, operates, controls, or

supervises an EGU or boiler identified

in paragraph (d)(1).

Unit means any of the EGUs or boilers

identified in paragraph (d)(1).

(3) Emissions cap. The EGUs

identified in paragraph (d)(1) shall not

emit or cause to be emitted SO 2 in

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

calculated as the sum of total SO 2

emissions for all five units over a rolling

12-month period.

(4) Compliance date. Compliance

with the emissions cap and other

requirements of this section is required

at all times on and after January 1, 2018.

(5) Monitoring, recordkeeping and

reporting requirements.

(i) All records, including support

information, required by this paragraph

(5) shall be maintained for at least five

(5) years from the date of the

measurement, test or report. These

records shall be in a permanent form

suitable for inspection and made

available to EPA, the Hawaii

Department of Health or their

representatives upon request.

(ii) The owners and operators of the

EGUs identified in paragraph (d)(1)

shall maintain records of fuel deliveries

identifying the delivery dates and the

type and amount of fuel received. The

fuel to be fired in the boilers shall be

sampled and tested in accordance with

the most current American Society for

Testing and Materials (ASTM) methods.

(iii) The owners and operators of the

EGUs identified in paragraph (d)(1)

shall analyze a representative sample of

each batch of fuel received for its sulfur

content and heat value following ASTM

D4057. The samples shall be analyzed

for the total sulfur content of the fuel

using ASTM D129, or alternatively

D1266, D1552, D2622, D4294, or D5453.

(iv) The owners and operators of the

EGUs identified in paragraph (d)(1)

shall calculate on a monthly basis the

SO 2 emissions for each unit for the

preceding month based on the sulfur

content, heat value and total gallons of

fuel burned fired.

(v) The owners and operators of the

EGUs identified in paragraph (d)(1)

shall calculate on a monthly basis the

total emissions for all units for the

preceding twelve (12) months.

(vi) The owners and operators of the

EGUs identified in paragraph (1) shall

notify the Hawaii Department of Health

and EPA Region 9 of any exceedance of

the emission cap in paragraph (d)(3)

within thirty (30) days of such

exceedance.

(vii) Within sixty (60) days following

the end of each calendar year, the

owners and operators of the EGUs

identified in paragraph (d)(1) shall

report to the Hawaii Department of

Health and EPA Region 9 the total tons

of SO 2 emitted from all units for the

preceding calendar year by month and

the corresponding rolling 12-month

total emissions for all units.

(viii) Any document (including

reports) required to be submitted by this

rule shall be certified as being true,

accurate, and complete by a responsible

official and shall be mailed to the

following addresses:

Clean Air Branch, Environmental

Management Division, State of Hawaii

Department of Health, P.O. Box 3378,

Honolulu, HI 96801-3378,

and

Director of Enforcement Division, U.S.

EPA Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street,

San Francisco, CA 94105.

[FR Doe. 2012-12415 Filed 5-25-12; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P

31718

HeinOnline -- 77 Fed. Reg. 31718 2012
Reader Aids Federal Register

Vol. 77, No. 103

Tuesday, May 29, 2012

CUSTOMER SERVICE AND INFORMATION

Federal Register/Code of Federal Regulations

General Information, indexes and other finding 202-741-6000

aids

Laws 741-6000

Presidential Documents

Executive orders and proclamations 741-6000

The United States Government Manual 741-6000

Other Services

Electronic and on-line services (voice) 741-6020

Privacy Act Compilation 741-6064

Public Laws Update Service (numbers, dates, etc.) 741-6043

TTY for the deaf-and-hard-of-hearing 741-6086

ELECTRONIC RESEARCH

World Wide Web

Full text of the daily Federal Register, CFR and other publications

is located at: www.fdsys.gov.

Federal Register information and research tools, including Public

Inspection List, indexes, and links to GPO Access are located at:

www.ofr.gov.

E-mail

FEDREGTOC-L (Federal Register Table of Contents LISTSERV) is

an open e-mail service that provides subscribers with a digital

form of the Federal Register Table of Contents. The digital form

of the Federal Register Table of Contents includes HTML and

PDF links to the full text of each document.

To join or leave, go to http://listserv.access.gpo.gov and select

Online mailing list archives, FEDREGTOC-L, Join or leave the list

(or change settings); then follow the instructions.

PENS (Public Law Electronic Notification Service) is an e-mail

service that notifies subscribers of recently enacted laws.

To subscribe, go to http://listserv.gsa.gov/archives/publaws-l.html

and select Join or leave the list (or change settings); then follow

the instructions.

FEDREGTOC-L and PENS are mailing lists only. We cannot

respond to specific inquiries.

Reference questions. Send questions and comments about the

Federal Register system to: fedreg.info@nara.gov

The Federal Register staff cannot interpret specific documents or

regulations.

Reminders. Effective January 1, 2009, the Reminders, including

Rules Going Into Effect and Comments Due Next Week, no longer

appear in the Reader Aids section of the Federal Register. This

information can be found online at http://www.regulations.gov.

CFR Checklist. Effective January 1, 2009, the CFR Checklist no

longer appears in the Federal Register. This information can be

found online at http://bookstore.gpo.gov/.

FEDERAL REGISTER PAGES AND DATE, MAY

25577-25858 ......................... 1

25859-26148 ...................... 2

26149-26412 ...................... 3

26413-26658 ...................... 4

26659-26910 ...................... 7

26911-27112 ...................... 8

27113-27356 ...................... 9

27357-27560 ...................... 10

27561-28236 ...................... 11

28237-28470 ...................... 14

28471-28756 ...................... 15

28757-29206 ...................... 16

29207-29518 ...................... 17

29519-29852 ...................... 18

29853-30184 .................... 21

30185-30370 .................... 22

30371-30876 .................... 23

30877-31160 .................... 24

31161-31482 .................... 25

31483-31718 .................... 29

CFR PARTS AFFECTED DURING MAY

At the end of each month the Office of the Federal Register

publishes separately a List of CFR Sections Affected (LSA), which

lists parts and sections affected by documents published since

the revision date of each title.

3 CFR

Proclamations:

8805 ................................. 25859

8806 ................................. 26645

8807 ................................. 26647

8808 ................................. 26649

8809 ................................. 2665 1

88 10 ................................. 26653

88 11 ................................. 26655

88 12 ................................. 26657

88 13 ................................. 26907

88 14 ................................. 26909

88 15 ................................. 27555

88 16 ................................. 28759

88 17 ................................. 2876 1

88 18 ................................. 295 19

88 19 ................................. 29525

8820 ................................. 29527

882 1 ................................. 29529

8822 ................................. 2953 1

8823 ................................. 30875

8824 ................................. 3 1145

8825 ................................. 3 1147

8826 ................................. 3 1149

88 27 ................................. 3 115 1

8828 ................................. 3 148 1

Executive Orders:

13607 ............................... 25861

13608 ............................... 26409

13609 ............................... 264 13

13610 ............................... 28469

13611 ............................... 29533

136 12 ............................... 3 1153

136 13 ............................... 3 1155

136 14 ............................... 3 1157

136 15 ............................... 3 1159

Administrative Orders:

Memorandums:

Memorandum of April

20, 2012 ....................... 28757

Memorandum of May

17, 2012 ....................... 30873

Memorandum of May

5, 2005 (superseded

by May 21 OPM

m em o ........................... 31165

Memorandum of March

22, 2006 (revoked

by May 21 NARA

m em o ........................... 31163

Memorandum of May

21, 2012 (MCC) ........... 31161

Memorandum of May

21, 2012 (NARA) ......... 31163

Memorandum of May

21, 2012 (OPM) ........... 31165

Notices:

Notice of May 10,

2012 ............................. 27559

Notice of May 18,

2012 ............................. 30183

5 CFR

213 ..............................28226

302 ..............................28226

315 ..............................28226

330 ..............................28226

334 ..............................28226

362 ..............................28226

531 ..............................28226

532 ..............................28471

536 ..............................28226

537 ..............................28226

550 ..............................28226

575 ..............................28226

733 ..............................26659

890 ..............................

28226

1600 .............................26417

1601 .............................26417

1604 .............................

26417

1605 .............................26417

1650 .............................26417

1651 .............................26417

1653 .............................26417

1655 .............................26417

1690 .............................26417

2423 .............................26430

2424 .............................26430

2425 .............................26430

2429 .............................26430

Proposed Rules:

Ch. XXII ............... 28518, 31548

6 CFR

Proposed Rules:

5 ................................30433

7 CFR

205 ..............................28472

1208 .............................

26911

1485 .............................29474

1728 .............................29537

1755 .............................29537

1942 .............................29537

3203 .............................26660

Proposed Rules:

457 ..............................27658

761 ..............................31220

764 ..............................31220

3201 .............................25632

9 CFR

304 ..............................26991

381 ..............................26991

417 ..............................

26991

418 ..............................26991

Proposed Rules:

1 ................................28799

2 ................................28799

92 ...............................29914

93 ...............................29914

94 ...............................29914

95 ...............................29914

96 ...............................29914

HeinOnline -- 77 Fed. Reg. i 2012
ii Federal Register/Vol. 77, No. 103/Tuesday, May 29, 2012/Reader Aids

9 8 ..................................... 2 9 9 14

4 17 ................................... 2 7 13 5

424 ................................... 26706

10 CFR

1 1 ..................................... 2 6 1 4 9

2 5 ..................................... 2 6 14 9

7 3 ..................................... 2 7 5 6 1

1 1 0 ................................... 2 7 1 1 3

431 ....................... 26608,28928

609 ................................... 29853

Proposed Rules:

1 1 ..................................... 2 6 2 1 3

2 5 ..................................... 2 6 2 13

5 0 ..................................... 3 0 4 3 5

5 4 ..................................... 2 8 3 16

6 1 ..................................... 2 6 9 9 1

Ch. II .................... 28518,31548

429 ......... 28519, 28674, 28805,

31444

430 ......... 28519, 28674, 28805,

31444

Ch. III ................... 28518,31548

Ch.X ................... 28518,31548

12 CFR

32 6 ................................... 30 37 1

6 18 ................................... 25 57 7

10 12 ................................. 26 154

Proposed Rules:

40 4 ................................... 27 14 0

1005 ................................. 30923

10 9 1 ................................. 3 12 26

13 CFR

12 4 ................................... 28 23 7

Proposed Rules:

121 .......... 28520,29130,30227

12 4 ................................... 2 9 13 0

12 5 ................................... 2 9 13 0

12 6 ................................... 2 9 13 0

12 7 ................................... 2 9 13 0

14 CFR

2 6 ..................................... 3 0 8 7 7

39 ........... 26154, 26156, 26158,

26663, 26937, 26943, 26945,

26948, 28238, 28240, 29207,

29210, 29212, 29214, 29855,

29857, 29861, 29863, 30185,

30371, 30881, 31167, 31169,

31172,31174,31176,31483

71 ........... 26160, 28243, 28244,

28245, 28246, 28247, 29865,

29866, 29867, 29868, 29869,

29870, 29871, 29872, 29873,

29874,29875,30187,30883

73 ......................... 30376,30884

91 ......................... 28247,30885

9 5 ..................................... 2 7 3 5 7

97 ........... 26667,26669,31178,

31180

1 17 ................................... 2 8 7 6 3

1 19 ................................... 2 8 7 6 3

121 ....................... 28763,30877

12 9 ................................... 30 87 7

1240 ................................. 27365

Proposed Rules:

16 ..................................... 2 9 2 5 0

23 ................................ 28530

25 ................................ 28533

39 ........... 25642, 25644, 25647,

25930, 26216, 26993, 26996,

26998, 27142, 27144, 27659,

27661, 27663, 28328, 29914,

30228,30230,30232,30234,

30236, 30926

43 ..................................... 30054

71 ........... 27146,27148,27149,

27666,27667,29916,29917,

29918,29920,29921,30437,

30438, 30439, 31548

91 ......................... 30054, 30238

119 ................................... 30238

120 ................................... 30238

121 ................................... 30238

135 ................................... 30238

136 ................................... 30238

145 ................................... 30054

15 CFR

336 ................................... 31182

744 ................................... 28250

Proposed Rules:

742 ....................... 25932, 29564

772 ................................... 29564

774 ....................... 25932, 29564

16 CFR

1112 ................................. 31074

1450 ................................. 30886

Proposed Rules:

20 ..................................... 29922

1112 ................................. 31086

1118 ................................. 31086

17 CFR

1 ........................... 26672, 30596

240 ................................... 30596

275 ................................... 28476

Proposed Rules:

1 ....................................... 2 8 8 1 9

49 ..................................... 26709

240 ................................... 27150

18 CFR

35 ..................................... 26674

40 ......................... 26688,27574

Proposed Rules:

40 ..................................... 26714

284 ................................... 28331

19 CFR

351 ................................... 29875

357 ................................... 31182

20 CFR

655 ................................... 28764

21 CFR

179 ................................... 27586

201 ................................... 27591

310 ................................... 27591

510 ....................... 26697, 29216

520 ....................... 28252, 29216

522 .......... 26161, 26697, 29216

558 ....................... 26161, 29216

600 ....................... 26162, 30887

610 ....................... 26162, 30887

680 ....................... 26162, 30887

22 CFR

62 ..................................... 27593

123 ................................... 25865

126 ................................... 25865

Proposed Rules:

121 ....................... 25944, 29575

23 CFR

655 ....................... 28456, 28460

24 CFR

9 1 ..................................... 2 8 7 6 5

576 ................................... 28765

Proposed Rules:

5 ........................... 26218,28742

20 0 ................................... 2 62 18

20 7 ................................... 2 62 18

23 2 ................................... 2 62 18

982 ................................... 28742

983 ................................... 28742

25 CFR

3 6 ..................................... 3 0 8 8 8

26 CFR

1 ............. 26175,26698,27669,

30377

602 ....................... 26175,30377

Proposed Rules:

1 ....................................... 2 7 6 1 2

27 CFR

Proposed Rules:

9 ....................................... 2 7 0 0 1

28 CFR

0 ....................................... 2 6 1 8 1

3 5 ..................................... 3 0 1 7 4

3 6 ..................................... 3 0 17 4

Proposed Rules:

9 0 ..................................... 2 9 5 7 9

29 CFR

10 4 ................................... 2 58 68

4022 ................................. 28477

Proposed Rules:

1206 ..................... 28536,30241

2200 ................................. 27669

2550 ................................. 30928

57 0 ................................... 3 15 49

57 9 ................................... 3 15 49

30 CFR

9 15 ................................... 2 58 68

936 ................................... 25872

938 ................................... 25874

94 6 ................................... 3 14 86

12 10 ................................. 25877

1218 ..................... 25877,25881

Proposed Rules:

943 ................................... 25949

31 CFR

1 ....................................... 2 8 4 7 8

15 0 ................................... 2 98 84

Proposed Rules:

C h. X ................................ 2738 1

32 CFR

23 6 ................................... 2 76 15

706 ................................... 28487

Proposed Rules:

2402 ................................. 27 15 1

33 CFR

100 ......... 27115,27621,28766,

30188,30891,31493

1 10 ................................... 2 5 5 8 7

117 ......... 25590,25591,25592,

25889,25890,26437,27115,

27624,28488,28767,29895,

29897

165 ......... 25592,25595,25890,

25892,26699,27116,27118,

27120, 27123, 27621, 27625,

28253, 28255, 28766, 28769,

28770, 28771, 29898, 29899,

29901, 30188, 30195, 30400,

30891,31183,31186,31188,

31493

Proposed Rules:

100 .......... 25650,28538,30929

1 10 ..............................3 0 4 4 0

117 ......... 25653,25655,29924,

29927

162 ....................... 27007,28825

165 ......... 27156, 27159, 27381,

29251, 29254, 29929, 29932,

30242, 30245, 30443, 30445,

30448,30451

334 ....................... 25952,26229

34 CFR

690 ..............................25893

Proposed Rules:

C h. V I ............................... 25658

37 CFR

2 ................................3 0 1 9 7

7 ................................3 0 1 9 7

Proposed Rules:

1 ........................... 28331,28541

4 1 ...............................2 8 3 3 1

2 0 1 ..............................3 12 3 7

202 ..............................29257

385 ..............................29259

38 CFR

17 ...............................2 8 2 5 8

5 1 ...............................2 6 1 8 3

Proposed Rules:

4 ................................2 7 0 0 9

39 CFR

2 0 ...............................2 8 4 8 8

111 .......... 26185,27125,28259

1 2 1 ..............................3 1 19 0

233 ..............................25596

40 CFR

9 ................................

2 9 1 6 8

50 ......................... 28424,30160

51 ............ 28424,28772,30160

52 ........... 25901, 26438, 26441,

26444, 26448, 27626, 28261,

28264, 28489, 28491, 28782,

29540, 29904, 30208, 30212,

30214, 30216, 30900, 30902,

31200, 31496, 31499

7 0 ...............................

3 14 9 9

81 ............ 26950,28424,30088

8 2 ...............................

2 9 2 18

9 7 ...............................2 8 7 8 5

13 6 ..............................29 5 40

14 1 ..............................2 6 0 7 2

14 2 ..............................26 0 72

180 ......... 25903,25904,26450,

26456,26462, 26467, 26954,

27126,27130, 27628, 28266,

28270,28276, 28493, 29543,

29548,30402,30407

260 ..............................29758

27 2 ..............................29 2 3 1

300 ....................... 27368,31215

423 ..............................29758

430 ..............................29758

435 ..............................29758

44 9 ..............................29 168

79 9 ..............................28 2 8 1

HeinOnline -- 77 Fed. Reg. ii 2012
Federal Register/Vol. 77, No. 103/Tuesday, May 29, 2012/Reader Aids iii

Proposed Rules:

52 ........... 25660, 25953, 26474,

26475, 27162, 27671, 28336,

28338, 28543, 28825, 29270,

29581, 29586, 30248, 30453,

30454, 30467, 30932, 30953,

31240, 31262, 31265, 31268,

31692

6 0 ..................................... 2 6 4 7 6

9 8 ..................................... 2 9 9 3 5

12 2 ................................... 30 47 3

13 1 ................................... 2 9 2 7 1

14 7 ................................... 2 6 2 3 1

180 ......... 25661, 25954, 26477,

27164,30481

272 ................................... 29275

72 1 ................................... 30 97 2

795 ................................... 30972

799 ....................... 28340,30972

42 CFR

C h. IV ............................... 29002

43 0 ................................... 3 149 9

43 3 ................................... 3 149 9

44 1 ................................... 26 82 8

44 7 ................................... 3 149 9

45 7 ................................... 3 149 9

482 ................................... 29034

485 ................................... 29034

Proposed Rules:

4 12 ................................... 27 87 0

4 13 ................................... 27 87 0

424 ................................... 27870

430 ....................... 26232,26362

431 ....................... 26232,26362

435 ....................... 26232,26362

436 ....................... 26232,26362

43 8 ................................... 27 67 1

440 ....................... 26232,26362

441 .......... 26232,26362,27671

447 .......... 26232,26362,27671

476 ................................... 27870

489 ................................... 27870

43 CFR

Proposed Rules:

3160 ................................. 27691

44 CFR

64 ......................... 28282,29552

65 ......................... 30219,31216

67 ............ 26959,26968,30220

206 ................................... 28786

45 CFR

153 ................................... 29235

155 ................................... 31513

156 ................................... 31513

157 ................................... 31513

158 ....................... 28788, 28790

Proposed Rules:

171 ................................... 28543

46 CFR

1 0 ..................................... 3 1 5 1 5

1 2 ..................................... 3 1 5 1 8

47 CFR

1 1 ..................................... 2 6 7 0 1

12 ..................................... 28797

15 ..................................... 29236

36 ......................... 30410,30411

51 ............ 26987, 30903, 31520

54 ........... 25609,26987,30411,

30903, 30904, 31520

64 ..................................... 30915

73 ......................... 27631, 30423

76 ..................................... 30423

90 ..................................... 28797

Proposed Rules:

1 ....................................... 2 9 2 7 5

64 ..................................... 30972

79 ..................................... 30485

48 CFR

1 ........................... 27546, 27551

9 ....................................... 2 7 5 4 7

25 ..................................... 27548

30 ..................................... 27550

52 ............ 27547,27548,27550

204 ....................... 30366,30367

212 ................................... 30368

225 ......... 30356,30361,30365,

30368

243 ................................... 30367

252 ......... 30356,30359,30361,

30368,31536

Proposed Rules:

2 ....................................... 2 6 2 3 2

22 ..................................... 26232

31 ..................................... 29305

52 ..................................... 26232

49 CFR

40 ..................................... 26471

Ch. II ................................ 25610

228 ................................... 26703

231 ................................... 26703

236 ................................... 28285

350 ....................... 28448,28451

383 ................................... 30919

384 ....................... 26989,30919

385 ......... 26989,28448,28451,

30919

395 .......... 28448,28451,30921

396 ................................... 28448

571 ................................... 29247

1152 ................................. 25910

Proposed Rules:

17 1 ................................... 3 15 5 1

172 ................................... 31551

173 ................................... 31551

178 ................................... 31551

180 ................................... 31551

219 ................................... 29307

544 ................................... 28343

571 ................................... 30766

661 ....................... 26723,29953

171 ....................... 30976,31274

172 ....................... 30976,31274

173 ....................... 30976,31274

17 4 ..............................30 97 6

175 ....................... 30976,31274

176 ....................... 30976,31274

178 ....................... 30976,31274

18 0 ..............................30 97 6

1333 .............................27384

50 CFR

17 ............ 25611,26191,30820

2 17 ..............................3 15 3 7

223 ..............................29905

2 2 6 ..............................2 5 6 1 1

4 2 4 ..............................2 5 6 1 1

622 ......... 27374,28305,28308,

29555

635 ....................... 28496,31546

648 ......... 25623,25630,26104,

26129, 26704, 28311, 30224,

30427

660 ....................... 25915,28497

679 ....................... 26212,29556

Proposed Rules:

13 ......................... 27174,28347

17 ........... 25664,25668,25792,

27010, 27386, 27403, 28347,

28704,28846,29078,30988

2 0 ...............................

2 9 5 16

2 2 ...............................2 7 17 4

223 .......... 26478,27411,29586

224 ..............................26478

402 ..............................28347

600 ....................... 26238,30486

635 ....................... 25669,31562

640 ..............................28560

6 4 8 ..............................27 17 5

660 ..............................29955

6 7 9 ..............................29 96 1

HeinOnline -- 77 Fed. Reg. iii 2012