# + 2

(,1 1/,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 ofHawaii. 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 ofpreventing any future and remedying any existing manmade impairment ofvisibility 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 ofContents
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 ofRegional Haze B. Visibility Protection Requirements of the

CAA and EPA's Regulations C. Requirements for Regional Haze

Implementation Plans 1.Determination ofBaseline, Natural and

Current Visibility Conditions 2. Determination ofReasonable Progress

Goals 3. Best Available Retrofit Technology 4. Long-Term Strategy 5. Coordination ofthe 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 ofAgencies 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 ofProgress 1.Estimating Natural Visibility Conditions 2. Estimating Baseline Conditions 3. Summary ofBaseline and Natural

Conditions 4. Uniform Rate ofProgress 5. Contribution Assessment According to

IMPROVE Monitoring Data C. Hawaii Emissions Inventories 1. Statewide Emissions Inventories 2. Review ofthe Emissions Inventory for

Completeness and Accuracy 3. Assessment ofthe Emissions Inventory D. Sources ofVisibility Impairment in

Hawaii Class I Areas E. BestAvailable Retrofit Technology

Evaluation 1.Identification ofBART-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 ofPollutants 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 2Emissions

on Maui
a. Mobile Source S0 2Emissions on Maui b. Point Source S0 2Emissions on Maui
c. Conclusion ofReasonable Progress

Analysis for S0 2Emissions on Maui 5. Four Factor Analysis for S0 2Emissions

on the Big Island (Hawaii)
a. Mobile Source S0 2Emissions on the Big

Island (Hawaii) b. Point Source S0 2Emissions on the Big

Island (Hawaii)
c. Conclusion ofReasonable Progress

Analysis for SO 2Emissions on the Big Island (Hawaii) d. Benefits ofthe Emission Control Area on

Emissions From InTransit Marine Vessels 6. Reasonable Progress Goals-2018

Visibility Projections 7. Visibility Improvement Compared to

URP and Number ofYears To Reach Natural Conditions G. Long-Term Strategy 1.Interstate Consultation Requirement 2. Identification ofAnthropogenic Sources

ofVisibility 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 ofControl Measures g. Anticipated NetEffect on Visibility Due

to Projected Changes in Point, Area, and Mobile SourceEmissions Over the Next 10 Years H. Coordination ofRAVI 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 ofthis document, we are giving meaning to certain words or initials as follows:

i. The words orinitials Act or CAA mean or refer to the Clean Air Act, unless the context indicates otherwise.

ii. The initials b-, mean orrefer to total light extinction.

iii. The initials CBImean orrefer to Confidential Business Information.

iv. The initials DOH refer to the Hawaii Department ofHealth.

v. The initials dv mean or refer to deciview(s).

vi. The initials EGUmean orrefer to Electric Generating Units.

vii. The wordsEPA, we, us or ourmean or refer to the United States Environmental Protection Agency.

viii. The initials FIPmean or refer to Federal Implementation Plan.

ix. The initials FLMsmean orrefer to Federal Land Managers.

x. The words Hawaiiand State mean or refer to the State ofHawaii.

xi. The initials HECOmean or refer to the Hawaiian Electric Company.

xii. The initials HELCOmean orrefer to the Hawaii Electric Light Company. 

### 31692

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

xiii. The initials IMPROVE mean orrefer to Interagency Monitoring ofProtected Visual Environments monitoring network.

xiv. The initials IPMmean orrefer to Integrated Planning Model.

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

xvi. The initials MECOmean orrefer to Maui Electric Company.

xvii. The initials MWmean orrefer to megawatt(s).

xviii. The initials NEImean or refer to National Emissions Inventory.

xix. The initials NH mean orrefer to ammonia.

xx. The initials NOxmean orrefer to nitrogen oxides.

xxi. The initials NPmean or refer to National Park.

xxii. The initials OCmean or refer to organic carbon.

xxiii. The initials PMmean orrefer to particulate matter.

xxiv. The initials PM 2.5 mean or refer to particulate matter with an aerodynamic diameter ofless than 2.5 micrometers (fine particulate matter).

xxv. The initials PMomean or refer to particulate matter with an aerodynamic diameter ofless than 10 micrometers (coarse particulate matter).

xxvi. The initials ppm mean orrefer to parts per million.

xxvii. The initials PSDmean orrefer to Prevention ofSignificant Deterioration.

xxviii. The initials RA VImean orrefer to Reasonably Attributable Visibility Impairment.

xxix. The initials HPmean orrefer to Reasonable Progress.

xxx. The initials RPG orRPGsmean or refer to Reasonable Progress Goal(s).

xxxi. The initials RPOsmean orrefer to regional planning organizations.

xxxii. The initials SIPmean orrefer to State Implementation Plan.

xxxiii. The initials S02 mean or refer to sulfur dioxide.

x. The initials tpymean orrefer to tons per year.

xi. The initials TSDmean orrefer to Technical Support Document.

xii. The initials URP mean orrefer to Uniform Rate ofProgress.

xiii. The initials VOCmean or refer to volatile organic compounds.

xiv. The initials WEPmean orrefer 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 (docketnumber EPA-R09-OAR-2012- 0345). All documents in the docket are listed in the http://www.regulations.gov index. Although listed inthe 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.govor inhard copy at the Planning Office ofthe 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 ofthe docket Monday through Friday, 9:00-5:30 PST, excluding Federal holidays. C.Instructions for Submitting Commentsto EPA

Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R09-OAR-2012- 0345 by one ofthe following methods: 1.FederalRulemakingportal: 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,HandDeliveryorCourier: 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 willbe included in the public docket without change and may be made available online athttp:// 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.govor email. The http://www.regulations.gov Web site is
an "anonymous access" system, which
means EPA will notknow your identity
or contact information unless you provide it in the body ofyour comment. Ifyou 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 ofthe comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. Ifyou submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name and other contact information in the body ofyour comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. IfEPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA maynot 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. SubmittingCBI

Do not submit CBI to EPA through http://www.regulations.govor email. Clearly mark the part or all ofthe information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information in a disk or CD ROM that you mailto 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 ofthe comment that includes information claimed as CBI, a copy ofthe comment that does not contain the information claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket. Information so marked will notbe disclosed except in accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2. E. TipsforPreparingYour 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 ordisagree; suggest alternatives and substitute language for your requested changes.

* Describe any assumptions and provide any technical information and/
or data that you used.

* Ifyou 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 ofprofanity
or personal threats.

* Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period deadline identified. F.PublicHearings

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 ofHawaii, 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 willbe 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 ofthis 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 orless ifthe 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, ofthe hearing and written statements in the rulemaking docket. II. Background A. GeneralDescriptionofRegionalHaze

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 (NH3) 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 ofthe visual range that would exist under estimated natural conditions. 64 FR 35715 (July 1, 1999). B. VisibilityProtectionRequirementsof the CAA andEPA'sRegulations

In section 169A ofthe 1977 Amendments to the CAA, Congress created a program forprotecting visibility in the nation's NPs and wilderness areas. This section ofthe CAA establishes as a national goal the "prevention ofany future, and the remedying ofany 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

Visualrangeisthe 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 ofNPs 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 ofthe 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 ofthe visibility program set forth in section 169A ofthe CAA apply only to "mandatory Class I Federal areas." Each mandatory Class I Federal area is theresponsibility ofa "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 ofthe 1990 Amendments to the CAA, Congress added section 169B to focus attention onregional haze issues. EPA promulgated a rule to address regional haze onJuly 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 forRegionalHaze ImplementationPlans

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 ofcommon 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

3EPA's regional haze regulations require subsequent updates to the regional haze SIPs. 40 CFR 51.308(g)-(i). 

### 31694

HeinOnline -- 77 Fed. Reg. 31694 2012Federal 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 ofthe 156 Class I areas covered by the visibility program (40 CFR 81.401-437), and as part ofthe process for determining reasonable progress, states must calculate the degree ofexisting 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 ofimpairment (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 ofcomparing 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 ofvisibility 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 ofbaseline conditions to the then current conditions will indicate the amount of progress. In general, the

4The preamble to the RHR provides additional details about the deciview. 64 FR 35714, 35725 (July 1, 1999).

5See "Guidance for Estimating Natural Visibility Conditions Under the Regional Haze Rule (September 2003) and "Guidance for Tracking Progress Under the Regional Haze Rule (September 2003) for further information. 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 ofa series of regional haze SIPs that establish two RPGs (i.e., two distinct goals, one for the "best" and one forthe "worst" days) for every Class I area for each (approximately) ten-year implementation period. The RHR does not mandate specific milestones orrates 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 ofthe 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 ofthe 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 underthe 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 ofprogress" (URP)
or the "glide path") and the emission reduction measures needed to achieve that rate ofprogress over the ten-year period ofthe SIP. Uniform progress towards achievement ofnatural 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 atthe 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) ofthe 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 6built 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 oftheir 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
aBART 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 bestjudgment in determining whether VOC or NH3 compounds impair visibility in Class I areas.

In their SIPs, states mustidentify potential BART sources, described in the RHR as "BART-eligible sources." 40 CFR 51.308(e)(1)(i). A BART-eligible

6The set of "major stationary sources" potentially subject to BART is listedin CAA section 169A(g)(7). 

### 31695

HeinOnline -- 77 Fed. Reg. 31695 2012Federal 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 ofvisibility 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 notbe 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 ofvarying circumstances affecting different Class I areas, the appropriate threshold for determining whether a source "contributes to any visibility impairment" for the purposes ofBART 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 ofthat 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 ofcompliance; (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 ofthe source; and (5) the degree ofimprovement 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) ofthe CAA that states include in their regional haze SIP a tento fifteen-year strategy formaking reasonable progress, section 51.308(d)(3) of the RHR requires that states include
a long-term strategy (LTS) intheir regional haze SIPs. The LTS is the compilation ofall 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 ofthe emission reductions needed to meet the RPGs for the Class I area. States should consider all types of anthropogenic sources ofvisibility 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 ofemissions 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 ofthe RHR, EPA revised 40 CFR 51.306(c) regarding the long-term strategy for RAVI to require that the RAVI plan must provide for aperiodic review and SIP revision not less frequently than every three years until the date ofsubmission ofthe 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 orbefore this date, the state must revise its plan to provide for review and revision ofa coordinated LTS for addressing RAVI andregional 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 mustbe 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 mustbe 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 ofmonitoring data from the network. The monitoring strategy is due with the first regional haze SIP, and it mustbe reviewed every five years. The monitoring strategy must also provide for additional monitoring sites ifthe 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 2012Federal Register/Vol. 77, No. 103/Tuesday, May 29, 2012/Proposed Rules
visibility impairment at Class I areas in other states;

* Reporting ofall 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 ofpollutants that are reasonably anticipated to cause or contribute to visibility impairment in any Class I area. The inventory must include emissions for abaseline year, emissions for the most recent year for which data are available, and estimates offuture 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 ofthose 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
areport to EPA every fiveyears that evaluates progress toward achieving the RPG for each Class I area within the state and outside the state ifaffected by emissions from within the state. 40 CFR 51.308(g). The first progressreport is due five years from submittal ofthe initial regional haze SIP revision. At the
same time a five-year progress report is submitted, a state must determine the adequacy ofits 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 ofthe 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 ofimpairment of visibility in any Class I area and to offer recommendations on the development ofthe RPGs and on the development and implementation of strategies to address visibility impairment. Furthermore, a state must include in its SIP a description ofhow 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 ofvisibility in Class I areas. D. Roles of Agencies inAddressing RegionalHaze 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 ofvisibility impairment in Class I areas, states need to develop strategies in coordination with one another, taking into account the effect ofemissions 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 ofthe Grand Canyon, Native Village of Shungnak, Nez Perce Tribe, Northern Cheyenne Tribe, Pueblo ofAcoma, Pueblo ofSan Felipe, and ShoshoneBannock Tribes of Fort Hall. E.EPA'sAuthority ToPromulgateaFIP

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 ofthe 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 orfinds that the plan or plan revision submitted bythe State does not satisfy the minimum criteria established under [section 110(k)(1)(A)], or

(B) disapproves a State implementation plan submission inwhole orin part, unless the State corrects the deficiency, and the Administrator approves the plan orplan revision, before the Administrator promulgates such Federal implementation plan. Section 302(y) defines the term "Federal implementation plan" inpertinent part, as:[A] plan (orportion thereof) promulgated bythe Administrator to fillall or a portion ofa gap or otherwise correct all or a portion ofan inadequacy in a State implementation plan, and which includes enforceable emission limitations orother control measures, means ortechniques (including economic incentives, such as marketable permits orauctions oremissions allowances)
Thus, because we determined that Hawaii failed to submit aRegional Haze SIP, we are required to promulgate a Regional Haze FIP. III.Proposed Implementation Plan To Address Regional Haze in Hawaii A. Affected ClassIAreas

In accordance with 40 CFR 51.308(d),
we have identified two Class I areas within Hawaii: Hawaii Volcanoes NP on the Island ofHawaii, and Haleakala NP
on the Island ofMaui. 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 2012Federal Register/Vol. 77, No. 103/Tuesday, May 29, 2012/Proposed Rules

B. Baseline Visibility,NaturalVisibility, baseline/current and natural visibility conditions, and visibility impact and UniformRate ofProgress 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 ofthe two Hawaii Class I areas ofthe 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 Iarea 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 NP
........................................... 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

Naturalbackground 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 oflight extinction. Guidance, is estimated by calculating the values that characterize the natural For the two Class I Areas inHawaii, the expected light extinction using visibility conditions ofClass I areas. EPA opted to use WRAP calculations in default estimates ofnatural One alternative approach is to develop which the default estimates forthe concentrations offine particle and justify the use ofalternative natural conditions (see Table 2) were components adjusted by site-specific estimates ofnatural 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 offine 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

aii Vo lc

a n

o

esNP .............................................................................................................................................. 7.4 7 2.3 5 H

ale a

k ala NP ........................................................................................................................................................... 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 Iarea 20% Worst 20% Best days (dv) days (dv)

H

awaiiVolcanoes NP
.............................................................................................................................................. 7.2 2.2 H

aleak ala NP
........................................................................................................................................................... 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 inthe 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 ofHawaii," Air Division, EPA Region 9, May 14, 2012 [hereinafter "FIP TSD"].

8 Since visibility conditions are expressed in
terms ofdeciviews (dv), changes in visibility conditions are typically expressed in terms of "delta deciviews" or "delta dv."

9Guidance 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.

10The IMPROVE program is a cooperative measurement effort governed by a steering committee composed ofrepresentatives from Federal agencies (includingrepresentatives from EPA and the FLMs) and RPOs. The IMPROVE monitoring program was established in 1985 to aid the creation ofFederal and State implementation plans for the protection ofvisibility in Class I areas. One of the objectives of IMPROVE is to identify chemical species andemission sources responsible for existing anthropogenic visibility impairment. The IMPROVE program has alsobeen a key instrument in visibility-related research, including the advancement ofmonitoring instrumentation, analysis techniques, visibility modeling, policy formulation and source attribution field studies. 

### 31698

HeinOnline -- 77 Fed. Reg. 31698 2012Federal 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 ofsulfate, nitrate, and organic carbon (OC). It also adjusts the mass multiplier for OC (particulate organic matter) by increasing itfrom 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 oflight 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 ofammonium 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 notinclude 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 fromyear 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 inthe year 2064. Therefore, in estimating natural conditions for purposes ofthis first planning period, we have assumed that there willbe 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 oflight 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 ofmonitoring 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 Iarea days days (deciview) (deciview)

H

aw aiiVolcanoes NP
.............................................................................................................................................. 18.9 4.1 H

aleak ala NP
........................................................................................................................................................... 13.3 4.6

3. Summary ofBaseline and Natural calculated the number of deciviews by ofdeciviews 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 Iarea 20% Worst 20% Best days days

H

aw aiiVolcanoes NP
.............................................................................................................................................. 11.7 1.9 H

aleak ala NP
........................................................................................................................................................... 5.8 1.9

4. Uniform Rate of Progress

In setting the RPGs, EPA reviewed the IMPROVE data to analyze and determine the URP needed to reach natural visibility conditions by the year 2064. In so doing, the analysis compared the baseline visibility conditions in each Class I area to the natural visibility conditions in each

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 ConditionsIDescription.p4

12The science behind the revised IMPROVE equation is summarized in ourFIP 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 ofWestern 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 oftheIMPROVE Equation forEstimating Ambient LightExtinction Coefficients-FinalReport.March 2006. Prepared for IMPROVE, Colorado State University, Cooperative Institutefor Research in the Atmosphere, Fort Collins, Colorado, and Pitchford, Marc., 2006, Natural Haze LevelsII:Application of visibility impairment for 2000 through 2004 to the level ofvisibility 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.

theNewIMPROVEAlgorithm toNaturalSpecies Concentrations Estimates.Final Report ofthe Natural Haze Levels II Committee to the RPO Monitoring/Data Analysis Workgroup. September 2006.

13The amount oflight 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 2012Federal 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
alesser 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% ofthe visibility degradation at the park.

Organic carbon contributes to 10% and elemental carbon contributes to 5% ofthe 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 oforganic and elemental carbon than the HALE1 monitoring site. 16 17

14Additional data and information can be found at: http://views.cira.colostate.edu/web/DataFiles/ SummaryDataFiles.aspx.

15Data from the Haleakala Monitor (HALE1), located outside Haleakala NP.

16

Comparison ofHaleakala National Park HALE1 and HACR1 IMPROVE Monitoring Site 2007-2008 Data Sets, March 30, 2012, State ofHawaii, Department ofHealth, Clean Air Branch.

17

Review ofVIEWS2.0 2009-2010 Haleakala National Park Organic and Elemental Carbon Data, C.HawaiiEmissionsInventories 1. Statewide Emissions Inventories

40 CFR 51.308(d)(4)(v) requires that EPA maintain a statewide inventory of emissions ofpollutants 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 ofHawaii, Department of Health, Clean Air Branch.

18Memorandum from Lydia N. Wegman, "2002 Base Year Emission Inventory SIP Planning: 8-Hour Ozone, PM2.5and Regional Haze Programs" (November 18, 2002).

19Email from Priscilla Ligh, Hawaii DOH, to Gregg Nudd, EPA, May 3, 2012.

20Sections II.A.4 and II.B.4 of the FIPTSD. within the baseline period of 2000- 2004, EPA has performed a comparison ofthe aerosol composition of the 2005 data and 2001-2004 data for each Class I Area. This analysis showed overall level and speciation ofpollutants measured at the Class I area monitors in 2005 was consistent with the overall level and speciation ofpollutants during the 2001-2004 baseline period. Since the measured visibility-impairing pollution in 2005 was consistent with the baseline years, itis 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 ofthe 2005, 2008, and 2018 inventories were derived from a 2010 study conducted by Environ on behalf of the Hawaii DOH. 2 1The 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 ofthis proposed FIP, EPA finalized a new model for the estimation of emissions from on-road vehicles. This

21 "Final Emission Inventory Report: Data Population forAir System for Hawaii Emissions Data (AirSHED)," Environ International Corporation, April 12, 2010.

22See email from Priscilla Ligh, HI DOH to Greg Nudd, USEPA, on November 18, 2011 and associated document: "RevA Emissions inventory response to EPA 11-17-11 forEPA.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 2012Federal Register/Vol. 77, No. 103/Tuesday, May 29, 2012/Proposed Rules

new model, MOVES, provides for a more accurate estimation ofemissions from these sources. EPA worked with the University ofNorth 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 ofthe economic recession on marine vessel activity, and cruise ships in particular. In addition, Environ did not take into account the impact ofthe North American Emissions Control Area (NAECA). The United States Government, together with Canada and France, established the NA ECA under the auspices ofAnnex VI ofthe International Convention for the Prevention ofPollution from Ships (MARPOL Annex VI), a treaty developed by the International Maritime Organization. This ECA will require use oflower sulfur fuels in ships operating within 200 nautical miles ofthe majority ofthe 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 ofthe ECA. The 2018 marine emissions estimates in Table 8
are based on this more recent work by UNC and ICF. 24

TABLE 8-STATEWIDE EMISSIONS INVENTORY FOR 

### 2005 [Tons per year]
Source category NOx SO2 VOC PM NH3 Point Sources

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

....................................................................... 1,509 3,716 16,920 33,408 11,136 Windblown D ust ................................................................... ........................ ........................ ........................ 46,808

........................ Wildfire

................................................................................. 2,156 591 4,729 9,771 540 Agricultural Burning

.............................................................. 406 178 535 1,567 60 Other fire

.......................................................................... . 1

........................ 7 7

........................ On-Road Mobile Sources

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

................................................... 4,750 534 6,121 484 5 Aircraft

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

........................ In and Near Port Marine

...................................................... 2,572 2,201 92 183

........................ Underway Marine (<30 nm 25)

............................................. 3,052 1,418 117 215

........................ Trains ................................................................................... 5
......................... ....................... .. ...................... .. . ..................... Volc an

o ................................................................................ ......................... 9 61,3 6 6 ........................ . ....................... . . ...................... Sea Spray ............................................................................ . ........................ ........................ . ........................ 382,637

........................ Biogenic

............................................................................... 4,617

........................ 130,153
........................ . ........................ Total

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

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

TABLE 9-STATEWIDE INVENTORY FOR EMISSIONS 

### 2008 [Tons per year]
Source category NOx SO2 VOC PM NH3 Point Sources

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

....................................................................... 1,166 15,767 18,025 34,917 11,275 Windblown D ust ................................................................... ........................ ........................ ........................ 46,808

........................ Wildfire

................................................................................. 2,156 591 4,729 9,771 540 Agricultural Burning

.............................................................. 406 178 535 1,567 60 Other fire

.......................................................................... . 1

........................ 8 7

........................ On Road Mobile Sources

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

................................................... 4,573 78 4,912 422 5 Aircraft

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

........................ In and Near Port Marine

...................................................... 12,432 2,638 308 605

........................ Underway Marine (<30 nm)

................................................. 562 282 18 42

........................ Trains ................................................................................... 5
..................... .. . . ........................ . ..................... .. . ..................... Volcano ................................................................................ ........................ 1,195,314
........................ . ....................... . . ...................... Sea Spray ............................................................................ . ........................ ........................ . ........................ 382,637

........................ Biogenic

............................................................................... 4,617

........................ 130,153
........................ . ........................ Total

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

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

TABLE 10-STATEWIDE EMISSIONS INVENTORY FOR 

### 2018

Source category NOx SO2 VOC PM NH3 Point Sources ....................................................................... 1 28,594 1 36,212

23Technical 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," ICFInternational, April 2, 2012. 4,157 1

25Nautical miles. 5,052 

### 31701

HeinOnline -- 77 Fed. Reg. 31701 2012Federal 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 Windblown D ust ................................................................... ........................ ........................ ........................ 46,808

........................ Wildfire

................................................................................. 2,156 591 4,729 9,771 540 Agricultural Burning

.............................................................. 406 178 535 1,567 60 Other fire

.......................................................................... . 1

........................ 8 7

........................ On Road Mobile Sources

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

................................................... 3,090 7 4,579 297 7 Aircra ft

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

........................ In and Near Port Marine

...................................................... 2,097 117 92 50

........................ Underway Marine (<30nm)

.................................................. 1,867 68 78 33

........................ Trains

.................................................................................... 5. Volc an

o ................................................................................ ......................... 6 83,7 4

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

........................ Biogenic

............................................................................... 4,617

........................ 130,153
........................ . ........................ Total

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

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

2.Review of the Emissions Inventory for Completeness and Accuracy

EPA has reviewed the methods used by Environ, the Hawaii Department of Health and ICF in developing this inventory. We propose to find that the best available emissions factors and activity data were used in developing the emissions estimates. We also propose to find that the inventory captures all ofthe emissions sources relevant to the development ofa 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% ofthe 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 ofNON 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 SO2 emissions are expected to increase between 2005 and 2018, largely due to increased emissions from point sources. The lower sulfur marine fuels required by the ECA are expected to result in a 95% reduction in emissions from shipping, but those reductions are overwhelmed by the increases from point source emissions. The growth rate of point source emissions is very sensitive to assumptions about future economic growth. The Environ report, from which this data is derived,
assumes robust economic growth between 2005 and 2018. Given the economic recession that began inlate 2008 this level of emission growth will likely over-predict future anthropogenic emissions. Nevertheless, this is the best data available. Our analysis ofthe monitoring data indicates that SO 2 is the principal pollutant ofconcern for this planning period. See section III.D below. The visibility impacts ofNON and VOC emissions are ofsecondary importance. Id. The increase in anthropogenic SO 2 emissions indicates that additional pollution reductions are needed to
ensure reasonable progress toward the goal ofeliminating anthropogenic visibility impairment in Hawaii's mandatory class I areas. Our proposal to achieve these reductions is explained in section III.F ofthis notice.
D. Sources ofVisibilityImpairmentin HawaiiClassIAreas

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 ofHawaii. 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 onthe 20% Worst Days in 2001 to 2004.

26Haleakala NPVisibility Assessment, Hawai'i Volcanoes NP Visibility Assessment, and IMPROVE PMF Factor Identification notes Positive Matrix Factorization Analysis ofHALE1 &HAVO1 IMPROVE data sets April 20, 2012, State ofHawaii, Department ofAgriculture, Agricultural Air Quality Department ofHealth, Clean Air Branch. Task Force Meeting, Wailea, Hawaii, November 13

27M. Pitchford, "Causes ofHaze for Hawaii's Two and 15, 2005. Class I Areas", presented atUnited States 

### 31702

HeinOnline -- 77 Fed. Reg. 31702 2012Federal 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 ofvisibility degradation on the 20% worst days at both Haleakala NP and Hawaii Volcanoes NP. Natural causes ofsulfate 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% ofthe 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 ofnitrate 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 ofthe park. A comparison of monitoring data at the Haleakala Crater (HACR1) IMPROVE monitoring site at the Haleakala Site boundary shows approximately half the level oforganic carbon ofthe HALE1 site.30 Sources oforganic carbon include agricultural burning, oil combustion, and international transport. Organic Carbon contributes 4% ofthe visibility degradation at the Hawaii Volcanoes NP during the 2001-2004 time period, although more recent data from 2005- 2009 indicate that organic carbon

28Data from the HALE Monitor, located outside Haleakala NP.

29

Yvon and Saltzman 1996, Atmospheric Sulfur Cycling in the Tropical Marine Boundary Layer. J. Geophys. Res. 101, 6911-6918.

30Review ofVIEWS2.0 2009-2010 Haleakala NP Organic and Elemental Carbon Data, March 30, 2012, State ofHawaii, Department ofHealth, Clean Air Branch, and Comparison ofHaleakala NP HALE1 andHACR1 IMPROVE Monitoring Site 2007-2008 Data Sets, March 30, 2012, State of Hawaii, Department ofHealth, 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 ofthe park. A comparison of recent monitoring at the Haleakala Crater monitoring site at Haleakala NP (HACR1) shows a lower level ofelemental carbon ofthe HALE1 site.

Coarse mass contributes to 9% of the visibility degradation at the Haleakala (HALE1) monitor. The sources ofcoarse mass include fugitive dust, international transport, and shipping. Soil contributes to 1% of the visibility degradation at each ofthe 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 ofvisibility impairment for this pollutant, EPA has determined that itis notreasonable 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.BestAvailableRetrofit Technology Evaluation 1.Identification ofBART-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 ofthese facilities is BART-eligible. 2.Identification ofSources Subject to BART

The second step ofthe 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 anyvisibility 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

31Subject-to-Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART) Modeling for the State ofHawaii, Application ofthe CALPUFF Modeling System, March 3, 2010, Alpine Geophysics, LLC. 

### 31703

HeinOnline -- 77 Fed. Reg. 31703 2012Federal 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 ofvisibility 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 ofHawaii's contractor, Alpine Geophysics, developed a protocol, which was reviewed by the State ofHawaii 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 ofa 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 ofthe individual sources' impacts." The Guidelines affirm that states and EPA
are free to use a lower threshold ifthey conclude that the location ofa large number ofBART-eligible sources in proximity to a Class I areajustifies 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 (8thhigh) 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 ofthe total visibility impacts, while still excluding other sources with very small impacts.

The results ofthe 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 Iarea centile visibility or exempt impact (deciview)
HC&S Puunene facility (Bagasse)

.............................................................. Haleakala Hawaii Volcanoes

...... 0.059 0.008 Exempt.

32Note that ourreference 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 ofCALPUFF have corresponding versions ofCALMET, CALPOST, etc. which may not be compatible with previous versions (e.g., the output from a newer version ofCALMET may not be compatible with an older version ofCALPUFF). The different versions ofthe CALPUFF modeling system are available from the model developer at http://www.src.com/ calpuff/calpuffl.htm.

33 Subject-to-Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART) and Reasonable Progress (RP) Prioritization Modeling Protocol forthe State of Hawaii Application ofthe CALPUFF Modeling System, November 30, 2009, Alpine Geophysics, LLC.

34MM5 Application for 2005 Over the Hawaiian Islands, prepared for Hawaii State Department of Health, Environmental Management Division, Clean Air Branch Prepared by: Alpine Geophysics, LLC. 35Three years (2005, 2006, 2007) ofMM5 data have since been prepared forHECO. MM5 Meteorological Dataset Development for Hawaii, Draft December 2008, JCA. EPA has not reviewed this additional data, but may evaluate and consider this data for future visibility actions.

36Subject-to-Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART) Modeling for the State ofHawaii, Application ofthe CALPUFF Modeling System, Alpine Geophysics, LLC, 3 March 2010. 

### 31704

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

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

### IAREAS-Continued

Maximum 24- hour 98th per- Subject to BART Source and unit Class Iarea centile visibility o xm T impact or exempt (deciview)
HC&S Puunene facility (Coal)

.................................................................... Haleakala Hawaii Volcanoes

...... 0.133 Exem pt. 0.039 Chevron Refinery

........................................................................................ Haleakala Hawaii Volcanoes

...... 0.021 Exem pt. 0.016 Tesoro Refinery

.......................................................................................... Haleakala Hawaii Volcanoes

...... 0.025 Exem pt. 0.017 Hu Honua Bioenergy- Pepeekeo facility

................................................... Haleakala Hawaii Volcanoes

...... 0.323 Subject to 0.540 BART. MECO- 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- Waiau facility

................................................................................. Haleakala Hawaii Volcanoes

...... 0.083 Exem pt. 0.038 HECO- Kahe facility

.................................................................................. Haleakala Hawaii Volcanoes

...... 0.221 Exem pt. 0.132

The owner ofthe Hu Honua * Step 2: Eliminate Technically visibility impact analysis occurs during Bioenergy relinquished the facility's Infeasible Options; steps 4 and 5 ofthe process. existing permit on September 16, 2010 e Step 3: Evaluate Control As mentioned previously, the only and the facility was issued anew permit Effectiveness ofRemaining 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, itis 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 ifimplementing aFIP, must and Hill 6). Hill 5is 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 ofthe CAA: (1) The costs MW tangentially firedboiler. 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 aBART 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 ofthe visibility impact ofthese sources. The BART Guidelines (70 FR 39164 (July6, 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 ofthe following five steps: reasonably be anticipated to resultfrom current, complete year ofdata available

* Step 1: Identify All Available the use of such technology. See also40 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

S0 2 emissions ..................................................................................................................................................... tons per year [tpy]
..... 2,778 N

Ox emissions .................................................................................................................................................... tpy .............................. 735 PMemissions ...................................................................................................................................................... tpy .............................. 70 Visibility impact on Haleakala. 3 8 delta dv

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

Trinity Consulting, onbehalf of HELCO, the plant operator, performed a five-factor analysis for thisplant. 39 We have reviewed this analysis andbelieve it adequately addresses the five BART factors. Although the BART guidelines
are not mandatory for Hill because the

37Letter from Stuart Yamada, Hawaii DOH, to John C. Silvia, Hu Honua Bioenergy (August 31, 2011) attaching Covered Source Permit (CSP) No. 0724-01-C and Covered Source Permit Review Summary. plant's total generating capacity is less than 750 megawatts, the Trinity analysis is generally consistent with the guidelines. Our analysis ofthe 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, thebaseline 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

39BART Five-Factor Analysis Prepared for Hawaiian Electric Light Company, October 2010, Trinity Consultants. 

### 31705

HeinOnline -- 77 Fed. Reg. 31705 2012Federal 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 ofparticulate emitted by this plant. A wet scrubber would work, but these types ofdevices 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 ofa wet ESP as $13,000 per ton ofPM 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 ofthese 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 ofthe 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 ofvisibility impairment at Hawaii Volcanoes and at Haleakela, even on the best days. The Hill Plantis 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 pergallon. As a result, it is not a cost effective control
measure.

EPA requested HECO to consider switching to lower sulfur residual fuel oil, which wouldbe a less expensive option. HECO responded with its own cost effectiveness estimate. 4 0 The lowest cost option, residual fuel oil no more than 1% sulfur by weight, had a cost effectiveness ofbetween $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 inTable 14, below, and further explained inthe TSD for this action.

TABLE 14-COST AND BENEFITS OF SWITCHING TO 1% SULFUR FUEL OIL

Baseline Weight % Sulfur [S] Baseline Fuel Consumption

[gal/yr]

............................... Baseline Emissions [tons

S02/yr]

............................... New Fuel Weight % S
.......... Cost Differential [$/gal]

......... Controlled Emissions [tons

S02/yr]

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

............... Annual Emission Reductions

[tons S02/yr]

...................... Cost Efficiency [$/ton S02

reduced]

............................ 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

40Letter 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 peryear and an increase in fuel costs of over $4.7 million/year. Thus, the cost effectiveness ofthis 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 ofthe 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% ofthe state's energy needs through energy efficiency and renewable energy by 2030. One of the key pieces of legislation aimed at achieving this goal is Hawaii's 2009 Clean Energy Omnibus Bill (ACT 155 (09), HB 1464, signed June 25, 2009). This statute calls for 30% reduction in the state's energy use via efficiency and increases the state's renewable portfolio standard to 40% by 2030. EPA contracted with UNC and ICF to project the 2018 emissions of power plants considering the requirements of the Clean Energy Omnibus Bill. 42 These projections are compared to the current 2018 projections based on the most recent Integrated Resource Plan (IRP) for Hawaii electric utilities. This IRP predates the 2009 bill and so does not account for its requirements. Table 15 compares the baseline emission projections for 2018, derived from the current IRP and the projections that take into account the requirements ofthe 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 2012Federal 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

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

The projections based on the goals of the Clean Energy Bill assume that the energy conservation and renewable energy goals willbe met in amore or less even fashion year to year. So, by 2018, most ofthese projects will be in place. This is a fairly optimistic scenario, but itgives some insight into the impact ofthe 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 ofany BART requirements. This analysis also indicates that at least some ofthe units at Hill maybe coming to the end oftheir useful life within the next 20years.

The final factor to consider is the visibilitybenefits ofcontrols. 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 ofS0 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 ofall locations (i.e., receptors) in the Class I area. From among these daily values, the BART Guidelines recommend use ofthe 98th percentile, for comparing the base case and the effects ofvarious controls.

43EPA'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 notbelieve itjustifies the imposition of a control with a cost effectiveness ofapproximately $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 ofvisibility and that Hill may be an appropriate
source for such SO 2 reductions. F. ReasonableProgressGoals forHawaii In determining ifreasonable progress is being made, states, or EPA if implementing a FIP, are required to consider the following factors established in section 169A ofthe CAA and in our Regional Haze Rule at40 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 ifa 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 ofthe planning period (2018). Those modeling results

44 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 ofzero anthropogenic visibility impairmentby 2064.

In the case ofHawaii, though, a different method of determining reasonable progress is required. As explained above in sections III.C.1 and III.D, the dominant cause ofvisibility 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 oftons per year. As a result, there is little value in attempting to model visibility at the Class I areas in 2018. 1.Identification ofPollutants 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 ofvisibility impairment at each ofHawaii'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% ofthe visibility degradation on the 20% worst days at Haleakala.

Coarse mass contributes to 9% ofthe visibility degradation at Haleakala, and is also ofconcern. However, the sources ofcoarse mass (CM) are uncertain because of emission inventory limitations associated with natural
sources (predominantly wildfires) and uncertainty offugitive (windblown) emissions. Because of the difficulty in attributing the sources ofvisibility impairment for this pollutant, EPA has 

### 31707

HeinOnline -- 77 Fed. Reg. 31707 2012Federal 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 ofconcern are S02 and NOx, especially S02. We looked at trends in emissions of anthropogenic S02 and NOx in order to judge ifreasonable progress is being achieved.

Rather than use a full statewide inventory tojudge reasonable progress, we focused on the inventories for the islands where the Class I areas are located: Maui and the island ofHawaii ("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 atthe 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 ofcurrently operating individual sources ofpollution 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 ofMaui and Hawaii.48
TABLE 16-MAUI ANTHROPOGENIC EMISSIONS INVENTORY

2005 Inventory 2018 Inventory Source category NOx SO2 NOx SO 2
Point
................................................................................................................. 4,492 4,559 4,597 4,625 Nonpoint

.................................................................................................. ........ 462 481 548 571 On-Road Mobile

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

............................................................................................. 496 57 305 2 Aircraft
.............................................................................................................. 310 27 376 33 Agricultural Burning

......................................................................................... 298 132 298 132 Wildfires

................................................................................................. ........ 52 14 52 14 in/near port Marine

.......................................................................................... 699 569 836 32
Total
.......................................................................................................... 9,765 5,887 7,770 5,420

TABLE 17-HAWAII (BIG ISLAND) ANTHROPOGENIC EMISSIONS INVENTORY

2005 Inventory 2018 Inventory Source category NOx SO2 NOx SO 2
Point
................................................................................................................. 1,036 4,551 1,736 5,266 Nonpoint

.................................................................................................... ...... 1,849 808 1,882 872 On-Road Mobile

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

............................................................................................. 784 95 428 1 Aircraft
.............................................................................................................. 177 1 8 207 21 Agricultural Burning

......................................................................................... 2 0 2 0 Wildfires

........................................................................................................ 1,712 469 1,712 469 in/near port Marine

.......................................................................................... 537 418 546 20

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

3.Four Factor Analysis for NOx Sources
on Maui and the Big Island

As shown in tables 16 and 17, mobile
sources (on-road, non-road, aircraft and marine) constitute the largest fraction of base-year emissions onboth islands

45 See prevailing winds data from the Western Regional Climate Center (http://www.wrcc.dri.edu/ htmlfiles/westwinddir.html#HAWAIl). (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

46Ibid.
47 See Table VII-1 ofthe 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 SeeEmissions Inventory chapter ofthe FIP TSD for information on the development ofthese inventories. 

### 31708

HeinOnline -- 77 Fed. Reg. 31708 2012Federal 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 ofthe 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 ifthe 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 ofS02 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 2Emissions 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 offleet 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 onMaui

Point Sources comprise 77% ofthe 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 ofwhich are BARTeligible. Maalea is downwind ofthe 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
avisibility impact of0.667 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 ofthis 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

aui Pineapple Co. ......................................................................................... 80 24

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

The first RP factor is costs of compliance. HECO (the electric utility) performed a detailed analysis ofthe cost ofreducing S0 2 emissions at the Hill as part of the BART analysis for that
source. 51 EPA reviewed and largely concurred with the results ofthat analysis. As with Hill, the most costeffective control measure at Kahului

49 See FIPTSD Sections II.A., I.B, and III.B. 50 Subject-to-Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART) Modeling for the State ofHawaii, Application ofthe CALPUFF Modeling System, March 3, 2010, Alpine Geophysics, LLC. This modeled impact is higher than the BART modeling would be to reduce the amount ofsulfur 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 ofthe converting this plant to 1% fuel oil and estimate the impact ofthose costs on electric

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

51BART Five-Factor Analysis Prepared for Hawaiian Electric Light Company, October 2010, Trinity Consultants. rates, EPA developed abase case scenario derived from 2009 operating conditions. 52This analysis, which is summarized in Table 19below 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 inthe 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 2012Federal Register/Vol. 77, No. 103/Tuesday, May 29, 2012/Proposed Rules

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

Baseline Weight % S

........................................................................................................................................................................... Baseline FuelConsumption [gal/yr]
..................................................................................................................................................... Baseline Emissions [tons S0 2/yr]
........................................................................................................................................................ N

ew FuelWeight % S
......................................................................................................................................................................... Cost Differen tial [$ /gal]
........................................................................................................................................................................ Controlled Emissions [tons S02/yr]
..................................................................................................................................................... AnnualCosts [$ /yr]
.............................................................................................................................................................................. Annual Emission Reductions [tons S02/yr]
......................................................................................................................................... Cost Effic iency [$/ton S O2reduced]
....................................................................................................................................................

The second RP factor is the time necessary for compliance. The switch to
alower 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 ofthe Hawaii Clean Energy Initiative that sets the goal of70% 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 ofpower 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 2009bill 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 SO2 Emissions
IRP Clean Energy Bill

K

ahuluiPow er Plant ................................................................................................................ 2,822 0 M

aalaea Generating Station

.................................................................................................... 923 591

The projections based on the goals of the Clean Energy Bill assume that the energy conservation and renewable energy goals willbe met in amore or less even fashion year to year. So, by 2018, most ofthese 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 inthis 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 areasonable reduction for this planning period. Therefore, based on our consideration ofthe 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 atboth ofHawaii'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 2Emissions on the Big Island (Hawaii)

Mobile source emissions ofSO 2 on the Big Island are projected to drop 91% under existing regulations, driven primarily by reductions inmarine emissions due to the ECA. This control
measure is in addition to the benefits of fleet turnover as described above inthe 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% ofthe 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 ofthe 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 2012Federal 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 HELCO

- Puna Power Plant

............................................................................ 241 1,345 279 1,556 HELCO

- Keahole Power Plant

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

...................................................................... 38 222 28 166 Pepeekeo Power Plant/9-16-10 Hu Honua Bioenergy

........................................................... ........................ 420 78 Tradewinds Forest P roducts, LLC

................................................................... ........................ ........................ 133 15 HELCO

- Waimea Power Plant

....................................................................... 89 5 103 5

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

Because of their relatively low emission 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 ofthese

TABLE 22-MODELED VISIBILITY IMPACTS OF KEY POWER PLANTS ON HAWAII Visibility Impact [delta dv]
HAVO HALE

HELCO

- Kanoelehua H ill Generating Station
........................................................................................................ 2.334 0.808 HELCO

- Puna Power Plant .................................................................................................................................... 1.594 0.358 HELCO

- Shipman Power Plant
.............................................................................................................................. 0.777 0.321

These plants were also modeled with 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 ofreducing SO 2 emissions at Based on this analysis, EPA estimates impairment at Haleakala and Shipman Hill as part ofthe BART analysis for that that the cost effectiveness ofthis 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 ofthat reduced for sources on the Big Island.
TABLE 23-COSTS AND BENEFITS FROM SWITCHING TO 

### 1% SULFUR FUEL OIL

Hill Shipman Puna

Baseline Weight % S
................................................................................................................... 1.57 1.57 1.57 Baseline Fuel Consumption [gal/yr]

............................................................................................. 18,650,604 2,241,876 9,930,648 Baseline Emissions [tons SOjyr]

................................................................................................ 2,344 282 1,249 N

ew FuelWeight % S
................................................................................................................. 1.00 1.00 1.00 Cost Differential [$/gal]
................................................................................................................ 0.255 0.255 0.255 Controlled Emissions [tons SO jyr]

............................................................................................. 1493 180 796 Annual Costs [$/yr]

...................................................................................................................... $4,755,904 $571,678 $2 ,532,315 Annual Emission Reductions [tons SO jyr]

................................................................................. 851 102 454 Cost Efficiency [$/ton SO2 reduced]

............................................................................................ $5,587 $5,583 $5,583

TotalAnnual Cost ................................................................................................................. $7,859,89
........................ ........................ TotalAnnual Emissions Reduction ...................................................................................... 1,407
........................ ........................

In Table 23, most ofthe 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 2012Federal 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 ofthese 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 thanjust controlling Hill alone because applying the controls to all three sources of
concern would result in higher fuel costs for the system. The benefit ofthis change wouldbe a reduction in SO2 emissions ofat least 1,400 tons peryear.

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 ofcontrol measures and the remaining useful life of the source. As part ofour consideration ofthese two factors, EPA is taking into account the anticipated results ofthe Clean Energy Bill described above. Table 24 compares the emission projections for 2018 based on the IRP and the projections thattake into account the goals ofthe CleanEnergy Bill. 55

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

HELCO

- Kanoelehua H illGenerating Station
........................................................................................................ 3,264 765 HELCO

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

- Shipman Power Plant .............................................................................................................................. 166 0

Under the Clean Energy Bill scenario, Shipman is projected to cease operations by 2018 and Hill and Puna
are projected to be operating at a significantly lower capacity factor and/
orburning 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 ofSO 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 3,550tons 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 ofSO 2 per year from the totalprojected 2018 emissions from these units.EPA is structuring this control requirement to allow HECO to minimize costs. IfHECO implements the Hawaii Clean Energy Bill on schedule, it should be able to meet this cap with no additional costs to the ratepayers. Ifthe 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 inplace, 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 ofthe 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 ofthe ECA on this category ofmarine 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 (rl4-18-12), Energy Strategies Incorporated, April 18, 2012. 55Clean Energy Bill estimates from Email from titled: "HawaiiEmissions 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 2012Federal 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 invisibility due to changes in the emission inventory for all sources (shipping, mobile sources, point sources, etc.). 56In the absence of reliable visibility modeling for 2018, EPA is using the island-specific inventories as a surrogate forjudging whether reasonable progress is being made.

In order to show how the future emission changes may affect the aerosol levels in each ofthe Class 1 areas, EPA estimated the effect that the changes in the island-specific inventories forNON and S02 will have on the levels of nitrate and sulfate for each ofthe 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 ofimprovement needed to achieve the URP for 2018 at Haleakala NP is 1.38 delta deciview. Based on the projections ofvisibility, discussed above, the amount ofimprovement by 2018 wouldbe 0.29 delta deciview. This would result in a 2018 level ofvisibility of 13.0 deciview at Haleakala.

The amount ofimprovement needed to achieve the URP for 2018 for Hawaii NP is 2.73 delta deciview. Based on the projections ofvisibility, discussed above, the amount ofimprovement by 2018 wouldbe 0.18 delta deciview. This would result in a 2018 level ofvisibility of 18.7 deciview.

Therefore, the URP will notbe met at either NP. Based on our analysis ofthe 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 forpoint 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 ofnumber ofyears to reach natural conditions by control of anthropogenic emission does not represent arealistic 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 280years. Based upon the projected rate ofimprovement at Hawaii Volcanoes NP, natural conditions wouldbe met in over 800 years. Ifthe volcano stops erupting, natural conditions wouldbe 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 ofthe 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] ownjurisdiction," 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 ofHawaii'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 ofemission 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 ofHawaii. 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 ofAnthropogenic Sources of Visibility Impairment

Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.308(d)(3)(iv), States are required to identify all anthropogenic sources ofvisibility 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 ofthese 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 ofthe factors below. 57

a. Emissions Reductions Due to Ongoing Air Pollution Programs

Our LTS incorporates emission reductions due to a number ofongoing air pollution control programs. i. Prevention ofSignificant Deterioration Rules

One ofthe 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

57Our analysis ofthese factors relies in part on work performed byour 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 inthe docket for this action.

58Nonattainment New Source Review (NSR) requirements apply to newmajor sources and major
sources making major modifications in nonattainment areas. Hawaii has no nonattainment Continued 

### 31713

HeinOnline -- 77 Fed. Reg. 31713 2012Federal Register/Vol. 77, No. 103/Tuesday, May 29, 2012/Proposed Rules
permit program is designed to protect air quality and visibility inClass 1 Areas by requiring best available control technology (BACT) and involving the public in permit decisions. EPA has promulgated a PSD FIP forHawaii 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. See40 CFR 52.633. There have been no certifications ofRAVI 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 inTable 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 ofAnnex VI of the International Convention for the Prevention ofPollution 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 ofthe majority ofthe 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 ofNOx, SOx, particulate

areas atthis time andtherefore the nonattainment NSR requirements are not relevant.

59Excerpted from FIP TSDTable II-3. 6 0Excerpted from FIP TSDTable II-3. 61See 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 prohibitthe emission ofany "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 2The Hawaii SIP currently contains an earlier version ofthis 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 ofthis 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 oand 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 toreplace the old rule with HAR §11-60.1-1. See 77 FR 25111 (April 27, 2012).

64The Hawaii SIPcontains an earlier version of this rule, HAR § 11-60-26. See 40 CFR 52.620(c) (2011). 

### 31714

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

In addition to fugitive dust, another potential source ofvisibility-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 motorvehicles 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 ofthis coarse mass derives from fugitive dust emissions. Therefore, for the next planning period, a detailed study ofthe
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 offugitive 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 forAir 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", ICFInternational, March 23, 2012.

67 The Hawaii SIPcurrently contains an earlier version ofthis rule, HAR § 11-60-25. See40 CFR 52.620(c) (2011). EPA has proposed toreplace 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 wouldbe 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 oftheir 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% ofits net electricity sales by December 31, 2010; * 15% ofits net electricity sales by December 31, 2015; * 25% ofits net electricity sales by December 31, 2020; and * 40% ofits 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 8Technical Analysis for Arizona and Hawaii Regional Haze FIPs: Task 17: Information and Analysis to Support Hawaii's Long-Term Strategy University ofNorth Carolina at Chapel Hill, ICF International, April 13, 2012.

6 9 HRS § 269-92. 70"Energy Agreement Among the State of Hawaii, Division ofConsumer Advocacy ofthe Department ofCommerce &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 ofthe utilities' existing oil-fired units will decrease
over the period ofthe 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 ofsugarcane, which is cultivated mostly onMaui. Burn permits are required underHAR §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 atClass I areas, 75 we propose to determine that no further controls on agricultural burning
or forest fires are reasonable at this time. f.

Enforceability ofControl Measures 40 CFR 51.308(d)(3)(v)(F) ofthe 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 ofthis 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 (millionBritish thermal units per gallon (MMBtu/gal)) and total gallons offuel burned at each of the affected units. Based on these

71Section 11 ofthe Energy Agreement. 72

The Hawaii SIPcurrently contains an earlier version ofthis rule, HAR § 11-60-19. See40 CFR 52.620(c) (2011). EPA has proposed toreplace the old rule with HAR § 11-60.1-53. See 77 FR 25111 (April 27, 2012).

73

The Hawaii SIPcurrently contains an earlier version ofthis rule, HAR § 11-60-22. See40 CFR 52.620(c) (2011). EPA has proposed toreplace the old rule with HAR § 11-60.1-56. See 77 FR 25111 (April 27, 2012).

74

The Hawaii SIPcontains an earlier version of this rule, HAR § 11-60-21. See 40 CFR 52.620(c) (2011).

75

See FIPTSD Sections II.A, II.B and III.B. 

### 31715

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

parameters, the S02 emissions for each unit willbe 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 ofthis information must be reported to Hawaii DOH and EPA on an annual basis. Finally, any exceedance ofthe 3,550tpy 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 inPoint, Area, and Mobile Source Emissions over the next 10 years

As described above, total statewide anthropogenic emissions ofNON 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 ofthe monitoring data indicates that visibility impacts of SO2 emissions are ofgreater 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. Coordinationof RAVI andRegional HazeRequirements

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 integralvistais defined in 40 CFR 51.301 as a "view perceived from within the mandatory Class I federal area ofa specific landmark or panorama located outside the boundary ofthe 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 havebeen 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 of40 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 MonitoringStrategy

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 ofall 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 ofany 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. 7 8 Therefore, we propose to find that we have satisfied the requirements of40 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/rhtpurhrgd.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 of2000-2004. 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 ofthe 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 ofvisibility conditions within the Haleakala NP than the HALE1 IMPROVE monitoring site. J.FederalLandManagerConsultation andCoordination

Under section 169A(d) ofthe 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 thisnotice. 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 byphone 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 ofthe visibility protection program required by 40 CFR subpart P, including development and review ofimplementation planrevisions and 5-year progress reports, and on the implementation ofother programs having the potential to contribute to impairment ofvisibility in mandatory Class I Federal areas. We intend to continue to consult with the FLMs

79Comparison ofHaleakala NPHALE1 and HACR1 IMPROVE Monitoring Site 2007-2008 Data Sets, March 30, 2012, State ofHawaii, Department ofHealth, Clean Air Branch.

80 Review ofVIEWS2.0 2009-2010 Haleakala National Park Organic and Elemental Carbon Data, March 30, 2012, State ofHawaii, Department of Health, Clean Air Branch. 

### 31716

HeinOnline -- 77 Fed. Reg. 31716 2012Federal 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 ofSO 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 impairmentby 2064 at Hawaii's two Class I areas. V. Statutoryand Executive Order Reviews A. Executive Order12866:Regulatory Planning andReview 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 ofemissions 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 ReductionAct This proposed action does notimpose
an information collection burden under the provisions ofthe Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act, a "collection ofinformation" is defined as arequirement 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 orfor 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 ofManagement and Budget (OMB) control number. The OMB control numbers for our regulations in 40 CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9. C.RegulatoryFlexibility Act
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) generally requires an agency to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis ofany 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 ofsmall entities. Small entities include small businesses, small organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions.

For purposes ofassessing 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 ofa 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 ofthis proposed action on small entities, I certify that this proposed action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number ofsmall 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 ofHECO. 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. UnfundedMandatesReformAct (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 Order13132: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 ofpower and responsibilities among the various levels ofgovernment, 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 ofExecutive 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 Order13175: Consultation andCoordinationWith 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 thisrule. G. Executive Order13045:Protectionof ChildrenFromEnvironmentalHealth Risks andSafetyRisks

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 ofthe 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 2012Federal 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 Order13211:Actions Concerning RegulationsThat Significantly Affect EnergySupply, 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.NationalTechnology Transferand AdvancementAct

Section 12 of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) of 1995 requires Federal agencies to evaluate existing technical standards when developing anew 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 Order12898:Federal Actions To AddressEnvironmental Justicein MinorityPopulations 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 theirprograms, policies, and activities on minority populations and low-income populations in the United States.

We have determined that this proposed rule, iffinalized, 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 CFRPart52 Air pollution control, Environmental protection, Intergovernmental relations, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides.

Dated: May 14, 2012. Jared Blumenfeld, RegionalAdministrator, Region 9. For the reasons stated in the preamble, part 52 of title 40, chapter I, of the Code ofFederal 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 Visibilityprotection.

(d)Regional Haze Plan Provisions. (1)Applicability.This paragraph (d) applies to the following electric generating units (EGUs) andboilers: 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 CleanAir 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 ofthe EGUs or boilers identified in paragraph (d)(1). (3)Emissionscap.The EGUs identified in paragraph (d)(1) shall not emit or cause to be emitted SO 2 in

excess ofa total of3,550 tons per year, calculated as the sum oftotal SO 2 emissions for all five units over arolling 12-month period.

(4) Compliancedate. Compliance with the emissions cap and other requirements of this section is required at all times on and after January 1, 2018. (5)Monitoring,recordkeepingand reportingrequirements.

(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 apermanent form suitable for inspection and made available to EPA, the Hawaii Department of Health or their representatives upon request. (ii) The owners and operators ofthe EGUs identified in paragraph (d)(1) shall maintain records offuel deliveries identifying the delivery dates and the type and amount offuel 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 ofthe EGUs identified in paragraph (d)(1) shall analyze a representative sample of eachbatch offuel received for its sulfur content and heatvalue 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 ofthe 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 ofthe 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 ofthe EGUs identified in paragraph (1) shall notify the Hawaii Department ofHealth and EPA Region 9 of any exceedance of the emission cap in paragraph (d)(3) within thirty (30) days ofsuch exceedance.

(vii)Within sixty (60) days following the end ofeach calendar year, the
owners and operators ofthe EGUs identified in paragraph (d)(1) shall report to the Hawaii Department of Health and EPA Region 9 the total tons ofSO 2 emitted from all units forthe 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 aresponsible official and shall be mailed to the following addresses: Clean Air Branch, Environmental

Management Division, State ofHawaii 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 ofthe 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 ofContents LISTSERV) is
an open e-mail service that provides subscribers with a digital form ofthe Federal Register Table ofContents. The digital form ofthe Federal Register Table ofContents 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 Onlinemailinglistarchives,FEDREGTOC-L,Join orleave thelist (orchange settings);then follow the instructions. PENS (Public Law Electronic Notification Service) is an e-mail service that notifies subscribers ofrecently enacted laws. To subscribe, go to http://listserv.gsa.gov/archives/publaws-l.html and select Joinor leave the list(orchange 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 ofeach month the Office ofthe Federal Register publishes separately a List ofCFR 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
................................. 26651 88 10 ................................. 26653 8811 ................................. 26655 88 12 ................................. 26657 88 13 ................................. 26907 88 14 ................................. 26909 88 15 ................................. 27555 88 16 ................................. 28759 88 17 ................................. 28761 88 18 ................................. 29519 88 19 ................................. 29525 8820 ................................. 29527 8821................................. 29529 8822 ................................. 29531 8823 ................................. 30875 8824 ................................. 31145 8825 ................................. 31147 8826 ................................. 31149 8827 ................................. 31151 8828 ................................. 31481 Executive Orders: 13607 ............................... 25861 13608 ............................... 26409 13609 ............................... 26413 13610 ............................... 28469 13611 ............................... 29533 13612 ............................... 31153 13613 ............................... 31155 13614 ............................... 31157 13615 ............................... 31159 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 memo ........................... 31165 Memorandum of March

22, 2006 (revoked by May 21 NARA memo ........................... 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

98
..................................... 29914 417
................................... 27135 424
................................... 26706
10 CFR 11
..................................... 261 49 25
..................................... 26149 73
..................................... 27561 11

0
................................... 2711 3 431
....................... 26608,28928 609 ................................... 29853 Proposed Rules: 11
..................................... 26213 25
..................................... 26213 50
..................................... 30435 54
..................................... 28316 61
..................................... 26991 Ch.II.................... 28518,31548 429 ......... 28519,28674,28805, 31444 430 ......... 28519,28674,28805, 31444 Ch.III
................... 28518,31548 Ch.X ................... 28518,31548
12 CFR 326 ................................... 30371 618 ................................... 25577 1012 ................................. 26154 Proposed Rules: 404 ................................... 27140 1005 ................................. 30923 1091................................. 31226 13 CFR 124 ................................... 28237 Proposed Rules: 121 .......... 28520,29130,30227 124 ................................... 29130 125 ................................... 29130 126 ................................... 29130 127 ................................... 29130
14 CFR 26 ..................................... 308 77 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 95
..................................... 2 73

57 97
........... 26667,26669,31178, 31180 1 17 ................................... 28763 1 19 ................................... 28763 121 ....................... 28763,30877 129 ................................... 30877 1240 ................................. 27365 Proposed Rules: 16
..................................... 292 50 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....................................... 28819 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 91
..................................... 28765 576
................................... 28765 Proposed Rules: 5........................... 26218,28742 200 ................................... 26218 207 ................................... 26218 232 ................................... 26218 982 ................................... 28742 983 ................................... 28742 25 CFR 36 ..................................... 30888 26 CFR 1 ............. 26175,26698,27669, 30377 602 ....................... 26175,30377 Proposed Rules: 1....................................... 2761 2
27 CFR Proposed Rules: 9 ....................................... 27001 28 CFR 0 ....................................... 26

181 35
..................................... 30

1

74 36 ..................................... 30

174 Proposed Rules: 90
..................................... 29

5

79 29 CFR 104 ................................... 25868 4022 ................................. 28477 Proposed Rules: 1206 ..................... 28536,30241 2200 ................................. 27669 2550 ................................. 30928 570 ................................... 31549 579 ................................... 31549 30 CFR 915 ................................... 25868 936 ................................... 25872 938 ................................... 25874 946 ................................... 31486 1210 ................................. 25877 1218 ..................... 25877,25881 Proposed Rules: 943 ................................... 25949 31 CFR 1....................................... 28

4

78 150 ................................... 29884 Proposed Rules: Ch. X
................................ 27381 32 CFR 236 ................................... 27615 706 ................................... 28487 Proposed Rules: 2402 ................................. 27151 33 CFR 100 ......... 27115,27621,28766, 30188,30891,31493 1 10 ................................... 25

587 117 ......... 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 ................................... 304 40 117 ......... 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: Ch. VI

............................... 25658
37 CFR 2 ....................................... 30197 7 ....................................... 30197 Proposed Rules: 1........................... 28331,28541 41
..................................... 28331 201................................... 31237 202 ................................... 29257 385 ................................... 29259 38 CFR 17
..................................... 282 58 51
..................................... 26183 Proposed Rules: 4 ....................................... 2 7009 39 CFR 20
..................................... 28488 111 .......... 26185,27125,28259 1

21................................... 31

190 233 ................................... 25596 40 CFR 9 ....................................... 29168 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 70
..................................... 31499 81
............ 26950,28424,30088 82
..................................... 29

218 97 ..................................... 28

785 136 ................................... 295 40 141................................... 260 72 142 ................................... 260 72 180 ......... 25903,25904,26450, 26456,26462,26467,26954, 27126,27130,27628,28266, 28270,28276,28493,29543, 29548,30402,30407 260 ................................... 29758 272 ................................... 29231 300 ....................... 27368,31215 423 ................................... 29758 430 ................................... 29758 435 ................................... 29758 449 ................................... 29168 799 ................................... 28281

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 60
..................................... 264 76 98
..................................... 29935 122 ................................... 30473 131................................... 292 71 147 ................................... 26231 180 ......... 25661, 25954,26477, 27164,30481 272 ................................... 29275 72 1................................... 30972 795 ................................... 30972 799 ....................... 28340,30972 42 CFR
Ch. IV ............................... 29002 430 ................................... 31499 433 ................................... 31499 44 1................................... 26828 447 ................................... 31499 457 ................................... 31499 482 ................................... 29034 485 ................................... 29034 Proposed Rules: 412 ................................... 27870 413 ................................... 27870 424 ................................... 27870 430 ....................... 26232,26362 431 ....................... 26232,26362 435 ....................... 26232,26362 436 ....................... 26232,26362 438 ................................... 27671 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 10
..................................... 31 51

5 12
..................................... 31 51

8 47 CFR 11
..................................... 2 6701 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 92

75 64
..................................... 30972 79
..................................... 30485 48 CFR
1........................... 27546,27551 9 ....................................... 27547 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 ....................................... 26

232 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: 171................................... 31551 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 174 ................................... 30976 175....................... 30976,31274 176....................... 30976,31274 178....................... 30976,31274 180 ................................... 30976 1333 ................................. 27384

50 CFR 17
............ 25611,26191,30820 217 ................................... 31537 223 ................................... 29905 22

6 ................................... 2 561 1 42

4 ................................... 2 561 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 20
..................................... 2 9516 22
..................................... 2 7174 223 .......... 26478,27411,29586 224 ................................... 26478 402 ................................... 28347 600 ....................... 26238,30486 635 ....................... 25669,31562 640 ................................... 28560 648 ................................... 27175 660 ................................... 29955 67

9 ................................... 29961

HeinOnline -- 77 Fed. Reg. iii 2012