```

[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 103 (Tuesday, May 29, 2012)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 31692-31718]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-12415]

[[Page 31691]]

Vol. 77

Tuesday,

No. 103

May 29, 2012

Part II

Environmental Protection Agency

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

40 CFR Part 52

 Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; State of Hawaii; 
Regional Haze Federal Implementation Plan; Proposed Rule

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

[[Page 31692]]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

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

Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; State of 
Hawaii; Regional Haze Federal Implementation Plan

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to 
promulgate a Federal Implementation Plan (FIP) to address regional haze 
in the State of Hawaii. EPA proposes to determine that the FIP meets 
the requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA or ``the Act'') and EPA's 
rules concerning reasonable progress towards the national goal of 
preventing any future and remedying any existing man-made impairment of 
visibility in mandatory Class I areas. We are taking comments on this 
proposal and plan to follow with a final action.

DATES: Written comments must be received at the address below on or 
before July 2, 2012.

ADDRESSES: See Supplementary Information section for further 
instructions on where and how to learn more about this proposal, attend 
a public hearing or submit comments.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gregory Nudd, Air Planning Office 
(AIR-2), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region 9, 415-947-4107, 
nudd.gregory@epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. General Information
    A. Definitions
    B. Docket
    C. Instructions for Submitting Comments to EPA
    D. Submitting CBI
    E. Tips for Preparing Your Comments
    F. Public Hearings
II. Background
    A. General Description of Regional Haze
    B. Visibility Protection Requirements of the CAA and EPA's 
Regulations
    C. Requirements for Regional Haze Implementation Plans
    1. Determination of Baseline, Natural and Current Visibility 
Conditions
    2. Determination of Reasonable Progress Goals
    3. Best Available Retrofit Technology
    4. Long-Term Strategy
    5. Coordination of the Regional Haze SIP and Reasonably 
Attributable Visibility Impairment
    6. Monitoring Strategy
    7. SIP Revisions and Progress Reports
    8. Coordination With Federal Land Managers
    D. Roles of Agencies in Addressing Regional Haze
    E. EPA's Authority To Promulgate a FIP
III. Proposed Implementation Plan To Address Regional Haze in Hawaii
    A. Affected Class I Areas
    B. Baseline Visibility, Natural Visibility, and Uniform Rate of 
Progress
    1. Estimating Natural Visibility Conditions
    2. Estimating Baseline Conditions
    3. Summary of Baseline and Natural Conditions
    4. Uniform Rate of Progress
    5. Contribution Assessment According to IMPROVE Monitoring Data
    C. Hawaii Emissions Inventories
    1. Statewide Emissions Inventories
    2. Review of the Emissions Inventory for Completeness and 
Accuracy
    3. Assessment of the Emissions Inventory
    D. Sources of Visibility Impairment in Hawaii Class I Areas
    E. Best Available Retrofit Technology Evaluation
    1. Identification of BART-Eligible Sources
    2. Identification of Sources Subject to BART
    a. Modeling Methodology
    b. Contribution Threshold
    c. Sources Identified by EPA as Subject to BART
    3. BART Determination for Kanoelehua Hill
    a. BART for NOX and Particulate Matter (PM)
    b. BART for SO2
    F. Reasonable Progress Goals for Hawaii
    1. Identification of Pollutants for Reasonable Progress
    2. Determining Reasonable Progress Through Island-Specific 
Emissions Inventories
    3. Four Factor Analysis for NOX Sources on Maui and 
the Big Island
    4. Four Factor Analysis for SO2 Emissions on Maui
    a. Mobile Source SO2 Emissions on Maui
    b. Point Source SO2 Emissions on Maui
    c. Conclusion of Reasonable Progress Analysis for SO2 
Emissions on Maui
    5. Four Factor Analysis for SO2 Emissions on the Big 
Island (Hawaii)
    a. Mobile Source SO2 Emissions on the Big Island 
(Hawaii)
    b. Point Source SO2 Emissions on the Big Island 
(Hawaii)
    c. Conclusion of Reasonable Progress Analysis for SO2 
Emissions on the Big Island (Hawaii)
    d. Benefits of the Emission Control Area on Emissions From In 
Transit Marine Vessels
    6. Reasonable Progress Goals--2018 Visibility Projections
    7. Visibility Improvement Compared to URP and Number of Years To 
Reach Natural Conditions
    G. Long-Term Strategy
    1. Interstate Consultation Requirement
    2. Identification of Anthropogenic Sources of Visibility 
Impairment
    3. Other Long Term-Strategy Requirements
    a. Emissions Reductions Due to Ongoing Air Pollution Programs
    b. Measures To Mitigate the Impacts of Construction Activities
    c. Emission Limitations and Schedules for Compliance
    d. Sources Retirement and Replacement Schedules
    e. Agricultural and Forestry Smoke Management Techniques
    f. Enforceability of Control Measures
    g. Anticipated Net Effect on Visibility Due to Projected Changes 
in Point, Area, and Mobile Source Emissions Over the Next 10 Years
    H. Coordination of RAVI and Regional Haze Requirements
    I. Monitoring Strategy
    J. Federal Land Manager Consultation and Coordination
IV. Proposed Action
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
    A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review
    B. Paperwork Reduction Act
    C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
    D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)
    E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
    F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With 
Indian Tribal Governments
    G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From 
Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks
    H. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That 
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
    I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
    J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address 
Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income 
Populations

I. General Information

A. Definitions

    For the purpose of this document, we are giving meaning to certain 
words or initials as follows:

    i. The words or initials Act or CAA mean or refer to the Clean 
Air Act, unless the context indicates otherwise.
    ii. The initials bext mean or refer to total light extinction.
    iii. The initials CBI mean or refer to Confidential Business 
Information.
    iv. The initials DOH refer to the Hawaii Department of Health.
    v. The initials dv mean or refer to deciview(s).
    vi. The initials EGU mean or refer to Electric Generating Units.
    vii. The words EPA, we, us or our mean or refer to the United 
States Environmental Protection Agency.
    viii. The initials FIP mean or refer to Federal Implementation 
Plan.
    ix. The initials FLMs mean or refer to Federal Land Managers.
    x. The words Hawaii and State mean or refer to the State of 
Hawaii.
    xi. The initials HECO mean or refer to the Hawaiian Electric 
Company.
    xii. The initials HELCO mean or refer to the Hawaii Electric 
Light Company.

[[Page 31693]]

    xiii. The initials IMPROVE mean or refer to Interagency 
Monitoring of Protected Visual Environments monitoring network.
    xiv. The initials IPM mean or refer to Integrated Planning 
Model.
    xv. The initials LTS mean or refer to Long-Term Strategy.
    xvi. The initials MECO mean or refer to Maui Electric Company.
    xvii. The initials MW mean or refer to megawatt(s).
    xviii. The initials NEI mean or refer to National Emissions 
Inventory.
    xix. The initials NH3 mean or refer to ammonia.
    xx. The initials NOX mean or refer to nitrogen oxides.
    xxi. The initials NP mean or refer to National Park.
    xxii. The initials OC mean or refer to organic carbon.
    xxiii. The initials PM mean or refer to particulate matter.
    xxiv. The initials PM2.5 mean or refer to particulate matter 
with an aerodynamic diameter of less than 2.5 micrometers (fine 
particulate matter).
    xxv. The initials PM10 mean or refer to particulate matter with 
an aerodynamic diameter of less than 10 micrometers (coarse 
particulate matter).
    xxvi. The initials ppm mean or refer to parts per million.
    xxvii. The initials PSD mean or refer to Prevention of 
Significant Deterioration.
    xxviii. The initials RAVI mean or refer to Reasonably 
Attributable Visibility Impairment.
    xxix. The initials RP mean or refer to Reasonable Progress.
    xxx. The initials RPG or RPGs mean or refer to Reasonable 
Progress Goal(s).
    xxxi. The initials RPOs mean or refer to regional planning 
organizations.
    xxxii. The initials SIP mean or refer to State Implementation 
Plan.
    xxxiii. The initials SO2 mean or refer to sulfur dioxide.
    x. The initials tpy mean or refer to tons per year.
    xi. The initials TSD mean or refer to Technical Support 
Document.
    xii. The initials URP mean or refer to Uniform Rate of Progress.
    xiii. The initials VOC mean or refer to volatile organic 
compounds.
    xiv. The initials WEP mean or refer to Weighted Emissions 
Potential.
    xv. The initials WRAP mean or refer to the Western Regional Air 
Partnership.

B. Docket

    Data, information, and documents on which this proposed FIP relies 
have been placed in the docket for this action (docket number EPA-R09-
OAR-2012-0345). All documents in the docket are listed in the http://www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some 
information is not publicly available (e.g., Confidential Business 
Information (CBI)). Certain other material, such as copyrighted 
material, will be publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly 
available docket materials are available either electronically at 
http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Planning Office of 
the Air Division, Air-2, EPA Region 9, 75 Hawthorne Street, San 
Francisco, CA 94105. EPA requests you contact the individual listed in 
the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to view the hard copy of 
the docket. You may view the hard copy of the docket Monday through 
Friday, 9:00-5:30 PST, excluding Federal holidays.

C. Instructions for Submitting Comments to EPA

    Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R09-OAR-2012-
0345 by one of the following methods:
    1. Federal Rulemaking portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow 
the on-line instructions for submitting comments.
    2. Email: nudd.gregory@epa.gov.
    3. Fax: 415-947-3579 (Attention: Gregory Nudd).
    4. Mail, Hand Delivery or Courier: Gregory Nudd, EPA Region 9, Air 
Planning Office (AIR-2), Air Division, 75 Hawthorne Street, San 
Francisco, California 94105. Hand and courier deliveries are only 
accepted Monday through Friday, 8:30 a.m.-4:30 p.m., excluding Federal 
holidays. Special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed 
information.
    EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the 
public docket without change and may be made available online at http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided, 
unless the comment includes information claimed to be CBI or other 
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit 
information that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through 
http://www.regulations.gov or email. The http://www.regulations.gov Web 
site is an ``anonymous access'' system, which means EPA will not know 
your identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body 
of your comment. If you send an email comment directly to EPA, without 
going through http://www.regulations.gov, your email address will be 
automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is 
placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you 
submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name 
and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any 
disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to 
technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA 
may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid 
the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of 
any defects or viruses.

D. Submitting CBI

    Do not submit CBI to EPA through http://www.regulations.gov or 
email. Clearly mark the part or all of the information that you claim 
to be CBI. For CBI information in a disk or CD ROM that you mail to 
EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD ROM as CBI and then identify 
electronically within the disk or CD ROM the specific information that 
is claimed as CBI. In addition to one complete version of the comment 
that includes information claimed as CBI, a copy of the comment that 
does not contain the information claimed as CBI must be submitted for 
inclusion in the public docket. Information so marked will not be 
disclosed except in accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 
2.

E. Tips for Preparing Your Comments

    When submitting comments, remember to:
     Identify the rulemaking by docket number and other 
identifying information (subject heading, Federal Register date and 
page number).
     Explain why you agree or disagree; suggest alternatives 
and substitute language for your requested changes.
     Describe any assumptions and provide any technical 
information and/or data that you used.
     If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how 
you arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be 
reproduced.
     Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns, and 
suggest alternatives.
     Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the 
use of profanity or personal threats.
     Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period 
deadline identified.

F. Public Hearings

    As announced on May 11, 2012, 77 FR 27671, EPA will hold two public 
hearings at the following dates, times and locations to accept oral and 
written comments into the record:
    Date: May 31, 2012.
    Time: Open House: 5:30-6:30 p.m.
    Public Hearing 6:30-8:30 p.m.
    Location: The University of Hawaii, Maui College in the Pilina 
Multipurpose Room, 310 W. Kaahumanu Avenue, Kahului, Hawaii 96732.
    Date: June 1, 2012.
    Time: Open House: 4:30-5:30 p.m.
    Public Hearing: 5:30-7:30 p.m.

[[Page 31694]]

    Location: Waiakea High School Cafeteria, 155 W. Kawili Street, 
Hilo, Hawaii 96720.
    To provide opportunities for questions and discussion, EPA will 
hold open houses prior to the public hearings. During these open 
houses, EPA staff will be available to informally answer questions on 
our proposed action. Any comments made to EPA staff during the open 
houses must still be provided formally in writing or orally during a 
public hearing in order to be considered in the record.
    The public hearings will provide the public with an opportunity to 
present data, views, or arguments concerning the proposed Regional Haze 
FIP for Hawaii. EPA may ask clarifying questions during the oral 
presentations, but will not respond to the presentations at that time. 
Written statements and supporting information submitted during the 
comment period will be considered with the same weight as any oral 
comments and supporting information presented at the public hearing. 
Please consult sections I.C, I.D. and I.E of this preamble for guidance 
on how to submit written comments to EPA.
    At the public hearing, the hearing officer may limit the time 
available for each commenter to address the proposal to five minutes or 
less if the hearing officer determines it is appropriate. Any person 
may provide written or oral comments and data pertaining to our 
proposal at the public hearing. We will include verbatim transcripts, 
in English, of the hearing and written statements in the rulemaking 
docket.

II. Background

A. General Description of Regional Haze

    Regional haze is visibility impairment produced by a multitude of 
sources and activities that are located across a broad geographic area 
and emit fine particulates (PM2.5) (e.g., sulfates, 
nitrates, organic carbon (OC), elemental carbon (EC), and soil dust), 
and their precursors (e.g., sulfur dioxide (SO2), nitrogen 
oxides (NOX), and in some cases, ammonia (NH3) 
and volatile organic compounds (VOC)). Fine particle precursors react 
in the atmosphere to form PM2.5, which impairs visibility by 
scattering and absorbing light. Visibility impairment reduces the 
clarity, color, and visible distance that one can see. PM2.5 
can also cause serious health effects and mortality in humans and 
contributes to environmental effects such as acid deposition and 
eutrophication.
    Data from the existing visibility monitoring network, the 
``Interagency Monitoring of Protected Visual Environments'' (IMPROVE) 
monitoring network, show that visibility impairment caused by air 
pollution occurs virtually all the time at most National Parks (NPs) 
and wilderness areas (WAs). The average visual range \1\ in many Class 
I areas (i.e., NPs and memorial parks, WAs, and international parks 
meeting certain size criteria) in the western United States is 100-150 
kilometers, or about one-half to two-thirds of the visual range that 
would exist without anthropogenic air pollution. In most of the eastern 
Class I areas of the United States, the average visual range is less 
than 30 kilometers, or about one-fifth of the visual range that would 
exist under estimated natural conditions. 64 FR 35715 (July 1, 1999).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Visual range is the greatest distance, in kilometers or 
miles, at which a dark object can be viewed against the sky.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Visibility Protection Requirements of the CAA and EPA's Regulations

    In section 169A of the 1977 Amendments to the CAA, Congress created 
a program for protecting visibility in the nation's NPs and wilderness 
areas. This section of the CAA establishes as a national goal the 
``prevention of any future, and the remedying of any existing, 
impairment of visibility in mandatory Class I Federal areas \2\ which 
impairment results from man-made air pollution.'' On December 2, 1980, 
EPA promulgated regulations to address visibility impairment in Class I 
areas that is ``reasonably attributable'' to a single source or small 
group of sources, i.e., ``reasonably attributable visibility 
impairment.'' 45 FR 80084 (December 2, 1980). These regulations 
represented the first phase in addressing visibility impairment. EPA 
deferred action on regional haze that emanates from a variety of 
sources until monitoring, modeling and scientific knowledge about the 
relationships between pollutants and visibility impairment were 
improved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Areas designated as mandatory Class I Federal areas consist 
of NPs exceeding 6000 acres, wilderness areas and national memorial 
parks exceeding 5000 acres, and all international parks that were in 
existence on August 7, 1977. 42 U.S.C. 7472(a). In accordance with 
section 169A of the CAA, EPA, in consultation with the Department of 
Interior, promulgated a list of 156 areas where visibility is 
identified as an important value. 44 FR 69122 (November 30, 1979). 
The extent of a mandatory Class I area includes subsequent changes 
in boundaries, such as park expansions. 42 U.S.C. 7472(a). Although 
states and tribes may designate as Class I additional areas which 
they consider to have visibility as an important value, the 
requirements of the visibility program set forth in section 169A of 
the CAA apply only to ``mandatory Class I Federal areas.'' Each 
mandatory Class I Federal area is the responsibility of a ``Federal 
Land Manager.'' 42 U.S.C. 7602(i). When we use the term ``Class I 
area'' in this action, we mean a ``mandatory Class I Federal area.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As part of the 1990 Amendments to the CAA, Congress added section 
169B to focus attention on regional haze issues. EPA promulgated a rule 
to address regional haze on July 1, 1999. 64 FR 35714 (July 1, 1999), 
codified at 40 CFR part 51, subpart P (Regional Haze Rule). The primary 
regulatory requirements that address regional haze are found at 40 CFR 
51.308 and 51.309 and are summarized below. Under 40 CFR 51.308(b), all 
states, the District of Columbia and the Virgin Islands are required to 
submit an initial state implementation plan (SIP) addressing regional 
haze visibility impairment no later than December 17, 2007.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

C. Requirements for Regional Haze Implementation Plans

    The Regional Haze Rule (RHR) sets out specific requirements for 
states' initial regional haze implementation plans. In particular, each 
state's plan must establish a long-term strategy that ensures 
reasonable progress (RP) toward achieving natural visibility conditions 
in each Class I area affected by the emissions from sources within the 
state. In addition, for each Class I area within the state's 
boundaries, the plan must establish a reasonable progress goal (RPG) 
for the first planning period that ends on July 31, 2018. The long-term 
strategy must include enforceable emission limits and other measures as 
necessary to achieve the RPG. Regional haze plans must also give 
specific attention to certain stationary sources that were in existence 
on August 7, 1977, but were not in operation before August 7, 1962. 
These sources, where appropriate, are required to install Best 
Available Retrofit Technology (BART) controls to eliminate or reduce 
visibility impairment. The specific regional haze plan requirements are 
summarized below.
1. Determination of Baseline, Natural and Current Visibility Conditions
    The RHR establishes the deciview (dv) as the principal metric for 
measuring visibility. This visibility metric expresses uniform changes 
in haziness in terms of common increments across the entire range of 
visibility conditions, from pristine to extremely hazy conditions. 
Visibility expressed in deciviews is determined by using air quality 
measurements to estimate light extinction and then

[[Page 31695]]

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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The deciview is used to express reasonable progress goals, define 
visibility conditions and track changes in visibility. To track changes 
in visibility at each of the 156 Class I areas covered by the 
visibility program (40 CFR 81.401-437), and as part of the process for 
determining reasonable progress, states must calculate the degree of 
existing visibility impairment at each Class I area and periodically 
review progress midway through each ten-year implementation period. To 
do this, the RHR requires states to determine the degree of impairment 
(in deciviews) for the average of the 20 percent least impaired 
(``best'') and 20 percent most impaired (``worst'') visibility days 
over a specified time period at each of their Class I areas. In 
addition, states must develop an estimate of natural visibility 
conditions for the purpose of comparing progress toward the national 
goal. Natural visibility is determined by estimating the natural 
concentrations of pollutants that cause visibility impairment and then 
calculating total light extinction based on those estimates.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See ``Guidance for Estimating Natural Visibility Conditions 
Under the Regional Haze Rule (September 2003) and ``Guidance for 
Tracking Progress Under the Regional Haze Rule (September 2003) for 
further information.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For the first regional haze SIPs that were due by December 17, 
2007, ``baseline visibility conditions'' are the starting points for 
assessing ``current'' visibility impairment. Baseline visibility 
conditions represent the degree of visibility impairment for the 20 
percent least impaired days and 20 percent most impaired days for each 
calendar year from 2000 to 2004. Using monitoring data for 2000 through 
2004, states are required to calculate the average degree of visibility 
impairment for each Class I area, based on the average of annual values 
over the five-year period. The comparison of initial baseline 
visibility conditions to natural visibility conditions indicates the 
amount of improvement necessary to attain natural visibility, while the 
future comparison of baseline conditions to the then current conditions 
will indicate the amount of progress. In general, the 2000-2004 
baseline period is considered the time from which improvement in 
visibility is measured.
2. Determination of Reasonable Progress Goals
    The vehicle for ensuring continuing progress towards achieving the 
natural visibility goal is the submission of a series of regional haze 
SIPs that establish two RPGs (i.e., two distinct goals, one for the 
``best'' and one for the ``worst'' days) for every Class I area for 
each (approximately) ten-year implementation period. The RHR does not 
mandate specific milestones or rates of progress, but instead calls for 
states to establish goals that provide for ``reasonable progress'' 
toward achieving natural (i.e., ``background'') visibility conditions. 
In setting RPGs, states must provide for an improvement in visibility 
for the most impaired days over the (approximately) ten-year period of 
the SIP, and ensure no degradation in visibility for the least impaired 
days over the same period.
    States have significant discretion in establishing RPGs, but are 
required to consider the following factors established in section 169A 
of the CAA and in EPA's RHR at 40 CFR 51.308(d)(1)(i)(A): (1) The costs 
of compliance; (2) the time necessary for compliance; (3) the energy 
and non-air quality environmental impacts of compliance; and (4) the 
remaining useful life of any potentially affected sources. States must 
demonstrate in their SIPs how these factors are considered when 
selecting the RPGs for the best and worst days for each applicable 
Class I area. States have considerable flexibility in how they take 
these factors into consideration, as noted in EPA's Guidance for 
Setting Reasonable Progress Goals under the Regional Haze Program (June 
1, 2007) (pp. 4-2, 5-1) (``EPA's Reasonable Progress Guidance''). In 
setting the RPGs, states must also consider the rate of progress needed 
to reach natural visibility conditions by 2064 (referred to as the 
``uniform rate of progress'' (URP) or the ``glide path'') and the 
emission reduction measures needed to achieve that rate of progress 
over the ten-year period of the SIP. Uniform progress towards 
achievement of natural conditions by the year 2064 represents a rate of 
progress that states are to use for analytical comparison to the amount 
of progress they expect to achieve. In setting RPGs, each state with 
one or more Class I areas (``Class I state'') must also consult with 
potentially ``contributing states,'' i.e., other nearby states with 
emission sources that may be affecting visibility impairment at the 
Class I state's areas. 40 CFR 51.308(d)(1)(iv).
3. Best Available Retrofit Technology
    Section 169A of the CAA directs states to evaluate the use of 
retrofit controls at certain larger, often uncontrolled, older 
stationary sources in order to address visibility impacts from these 
sources. Specifically, section 169A(b)(2)(A) of the CAA requires states 
to revise their SIPs to contain such measures as may be necessary to 
make reasonable progress towards the natural visibility goal, including 
a requirement that certain categories of existing major stationary 
sources \6\ built between 1962 and 1977 procure, install, and operate 
the ``Best Available Retrofit Technology'' as determined by the state. 
Under the RHR, states are directed to conduct BART determinations for 
such ``BART-eligible'' sources that may be anticipated to cause or 
contribute to any visibility impairment in a Class I area. Rather than 
requiring source-specific BART controls, states also have the 
flexibility to adopt an emissions trading program or other alternative 
program as long as the alternative provides greater reasonable progress 
towards improving visibility than BART.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ The set of ``major stationary sources'' potentially subject 
to BART is listed in CAA section 169A(g)(7).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On July 6, 2005, EPA published the Guidelines for BART 
Determinations under the Regional Haze Rule at Appendix Y to 40 CFR 
part 51 (hereinafter referred to as the ``BART Guidelines'') to assist 
states in determining which of their sources should be subject to the 
BART requirements and in determining appropriate emission limits for 
each such ``subject-to-BART'' source. States are required to use the 
approach set forth in the BART Guidelines in making a BART 
determination for fossil fuel-fired 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 visibility-impairing pollutants emitted by 
a source in the BART determination process. The most significant 
visibility impairing pollutants are SO2, NOX and 
PM. EPA has indicated that states should use their best judgment in 
determining whether VOC or NH3 compounds impair visibility 
in Class I areas.
    In their SIPs, states must identify potential BART sources, 
described in the RHR as ``BART-eligible sources.'' 40 CFR 
51.308(e)(1)(i). A BART-eligible

[[Page 31696]]

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, Sec.  II. Each BART-eligible 
source that ``emits any air pollutant which may reasonably be 
anticipated to cause or contribute to any impairment of visibility in 
any mandatory Class I Federal area'' is subject to BART. 40 CFR 
51.308(e)(1)(ii).
    The BART Guidelines allow states to select an exemption threshold 
value for their BART modeling, below which a BART-eligible source would 
not be expected to cause or contribute to visibility impairment in any 
Class I area. The Guidelines provide that:

    A single source that is responsible for a 1.0 deciview change or 
more should be considered to ``cause'' visibility impairment; a 
source that causes less than a 1.0 deciview change may still 
contribute to visibility impairment and thus be subject to BART. 
Because of varying circumstances affecting different Class I areas, 
the appropriate threshold for determining whether a source 
``contributes to any visibility impairment'' for the purposes of 
BART may reasonably differ across States. As a general matter, any 
threshold that you use for determining whether a source 
``contributes'' to visibility impairment should not be higher than 
0.5 deciviews.

40 CFR part 51, Appendix Y, Sec.  III.A.1. The state must document its 
exemption threshold value in the SIP and must state the basis for its 
selection of that value. Any source with emissions that model above the 
threshold value is subject to BART and must therefore undergo a BART 
control analysis.
    In making BART determinations, section 169A(g)(2) of the CAA 
requires that states consider the following factors: (1) The costs of 
compliance; (2) the energy and non-air quality environmental impacts of 
compliance; (3) any existing pollution control technology in use at the 
source; (4) the remaining useful life of the source; and (5) the degree 
of improvement in visibility which may reasonably be anticipated to 
result from the use of such technology. States are free to determine 
the weight and significance assigned to each factor, but all five 
factors must be considered. The BART Guidelines provide further detail 
about how to analyze these factors.
    Once a state has made its BART determination, the BART controls 
must be installed and operated as expeditiously as practicable, but no 
later than five years after the date EPA approves the regional haze 
SIP. CAA section 169(g)(4), 40 CFR 51.308(e)(1)(iv). In addition to 
what is required by the RHR, general SIP requirements mandate that the 
SIP must also include all regulatory requirements related to 
monitoring, recordkeeping and reporting for the BART controls on the 
source.
4. Long-Term Strategy
    Consistent with the requirement in section 169A(b) of the CAA that 
states include in their regional haze SIP a ten- to fifteen-year 
strategy for making reasonable progress, section 51.308(d)(3) of the 
RHR requires that states include a long-term strategy (LTS) in their 
regional haze SIPs. The LTS is the compilation of all control measures 
a state will use during the implementation period of the specific SIP 
submittal to meet applicable RPGs. The LTS must include ``enforceable 
emissions limitations, compliance schedules, and other measures needed 
to achieve the reasonable progress goals'' for all Class I areas within 
and affected by emissions from the state. 40 CFR 51.308(d)(3).
    When a state's emissions are reasonably anticipated to cause or 
contribute to visibility impairment in a Class I area located in 
another state, the RHR requires the downwind state to coordinate with 
contributing states to develop coordinated emissions management 
strategies. 40 CFR 51.308(d)(3)(i). In such cases, the contributing 
state must demonstrate that it has included in its SIP, all measures 
necessary to obtain its share of the emission reductions needed to meet 
the RPGs for the Class I area.
    States should consider all types of anthropogenic sources of 
visibility impairment in developing their LTS, including stationary, 
minor, mobile, and area sources. At a minimum, states must describe how 
each of the following seven factors listed below are taken into account 
in developing their LTS: (1) Emission reductions due to ongoing air 
pollution control programs, including measures to address RAVI; (2) 
measures to mitigate the impacts of construction activities; (3) 
emissions limitations and schedules for compliance to achieve the RPG; 
(4) source retirement and replacement schedules; (5) smoke management 
techniques for agricultural and forestry management purposes including 
plans as currently exist within the state for these purposes; (6) 
enforceability of emissions limitations and control measures; and, (7) 
the anticipated net effect on visibility due to projected changes in 
point, area, and mobile source emissions over the period addressed by 
the LTS. 40 CFR 51.308(d)(3)(v).
5. Coordination of the Regional Haze SIP and Reasonably Attributable 
Visibility Impairment
    As part of the RHR, EPA revised 40 CFR 51.306(c) regarding the 
long-term strategy for RAVI to require that the RAVI plan must provide 
for a periodic review and SIP revision not less frequently than every 
three years until the date of submission of the state's first plan 
addressing regional haze visibility impairment, which was due December 
17, 2007, in accordance with 40 CFR 51.308(b) and (c). On or before 
this date, the state must revise its plan to provide for review and 
revision of a coordinated LTS for addressing RAVI and regional haze, 
and the state must submit the first such coordinated LTS with its first 
regional haze SIP. Future coordinated LTSs, and periodic progress 
reports evaluating progress towards RPGs, must be submitted consistent 
with the schedule for SIP submission and periodic progress reports set 
forth in 40 CFR 51.308(f) and 51.308(g), respectively. The periodic 
review of a state's LTS must report on both regional haze and RAVI 
impairment and must be submitted to EPA as a SIP revision.
6. Monitoring Strategy
    Section 51.308(d)(4) of the RHR requires a monitoring strategy for 
measuring, characterizing, and reporting on regional haze visibility 
impairment that is representative of all mandatory Class I areas within 
the state. The strategy must be coordinated with the monitoring 
strategy required in 40 CFR 51.305 for RAVI. Compliance with this 
requirement may be met through ``participation'' in the Interagency 
Monitoring of Protected Visual Environments (IMPROVE) network, i.e., 
review and use of monitoring data from the network. The monitoring 
strategy is due with the first regional haze SIP, and it must be 
reviewed every five years. The monitoring strategy must also provide 
for additional monitoring sites if the IMPROVE network is not 
sufficient to determine whether RPGs will be met. The SIP must also 
provide for the following:
     Procedures for using monitoring data and other information 
in a state with mandatory Class I areas to determine the contribution 
of emissions from within the state to regional haze visibility 
impairment at Class I areas both within and outside the state;
     Procedures for using monitoring data and other information 
in a state with no mandatory Class I areas to determine the 
contribution of emissions from within the state to regional haze

[[Page 31697]]

visibility impairment at Class I areas in other states;
     Reporting of all visibility monitoring data to the 
Administrator at least annually for each Class I area in the state, and 
where possible, in electronic format;
     Developing a statewide inventory of emissions of 
pollutants that are reasonably anticipated to cause or contribute to 
visibility impairment in any Class I area. The inventory must include 
emissions for a baseline year, emissions for the most recent year for 
which data are available, and estimates of future projected emissions. 
A state must also make a commitment to update the inventory 
periodically; and,
     Other elements, including reporting, recordkeeping, and 
other measures necessary to assess and report on visibility.
7. SIP Revisions and Progress Reports
    The RHR requires control strategies to cover an initial 
implementation period through 2018, with a comprehensive reassessment 
and revision of those strategies, as appropriate, every ten years 
thereafter. Periodic SIP revisions must meet the core requirements of 
section 51.308(d) with the exception of BART. The requirement to 
evaluate sources for BART applies only to the first regional haze SIP. 
Facilities subject to BART must continue to comply with the BART 
provisions of section 51.308(e), as noted above. Periodic SIP revisions 
will assure that the statutory requirement of reasonable progress will 
continue to be met.
    Each state also is required to submit a report to EPA every five 
years that evaluates progress toward achieving the RPG for each Class I 
area within the state and outside the state if affected by emissions 
from within the state. 40 CFR 51.308(g). The first progress report is 
due five years from submittal of the initial regional haze SIP 
revision. At the same time a five-year progress report is submitted, a 
state must determine the adequacy of its existing SIP to achieve the 
established goals for visibility improvement. 40 CFR 51.308(h). The RHR 
contains more detailed requirements associated with these parts of the 
Rule.
8. Coordination With Federal Land Managers
    The RHR requires that states consult with Federal Land Managers 
(FLMs) before adopting and submitting their SIPs. 40 CFR 51.308(i). 
States must provide FLMs an opportunity for consultation, in person and 
at least sixty days prior to holding any public hearing on the SIP. 
This consultation must include the opportunity for the FLMs to discuss 
their assessment of impairment of visibility in any Class I area and to 
offer recommendations on the development of the RPGs and on the 
development and implementation of strategies to address visibility 
impairment. Furthermore, a state must include in its SIP a description 
of how it addressed any comments provided by the FLMs. Finally, a SIP 
must provide procedures for continuing consultation between the state 
and FLMs regarding the state's visibility protection program, including 
development and review of SIP revisions, five-year progress reports, 
and the implementation of other programs having the potential to 
contribute to impairment of visibility in Class I areas.

D. Roles of Agencies in Addressing Regional Haze

    Successful implementation of the regional haze program will require 
long-term regional coordination among states, tribal governments and 
various federal agencies. As noted above, pollution affecting the air 
quality in Class I areas can be transported over long distances, even 
hundreds of kilometers. Therefore, to effectively address the problem 
of visibility impairment in Class I areas, states need to develop 
strategies in coordination with one another, taking into account the 
effect of emissions from one jurisdiction on the air quality in 
another.
    Because the pollutants that lead to regional haze can originate 
from sources located across broad geographic areas, EPA has encouraged 
the states and tribes across the United States to address visibility 
impairment from a regional perspective. Five regional planning 
organizations (RPOs) were developed to address regional haze and 
related issues. The RPOs first evaluated technical information to 
better understand how their states and tribes impact Class I areas 
across the country, and then pursued the development of regional 
strategies to reduce emissions of particulate matter (PM) and other 
pollutants leading to regional haze.
    The Western Regional Air Partnership (WRAP) RPO is a collaborative 
effort of state governments, tribal governments, and various federal 
agencies established to initiate and coordinate activities associated 
with the management of regional haze, visibility and other air quality 
issues in the western United States. WRAP member State governments 
include: Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, 
New Mexico, North Dakota, Oregon, South Dakota, Utah, Washington, and 
Wyoming. Tribal members include Campo Band of Kumeyaay Indians, 
Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes, Cortina Indian Rancheria, Hopi 
Tribe, Hualapai Nation of the Grand Canyon, Native Village of Shungnak, 
Nez Perce Tribe, Northern Cheyenne Tribe, Pueblo of Acoma, Pueblo of 
San Felipe, and Shoshone-Bannock Tribes of Fort Hall.

E. EPA's Authority To Promulgate a FIP

    EPA made a finding of failure to submit on January 15, 2009 (74 FR 
2392), determining that Hawaii failed to submit a SIP that addressed 
any of the required regional haze SIP elements of 40 CFR 51.308. Under 
section 110(c) of the Act, whenever we find that a State has failed to 
make a required submission we are required to promulgate a FIP. 
Specifically, section 110(c) provides:

    (1) The Administrator shall promulgate a Federal implementation 
plan at any time within 2 years after the Administrator--
    (A) finds that a State has failed to make a required submission 
or finds that the plan or plan revision submitted by the State does 
not satisfy the minimum criteria established under [section 
110(k)(1)(A)], or
    (B) disapproves a State implementation plan submission in whole 
or in part, unless the State corrects the deficiency, and the 
Administrator approves the plan or plan revision, before the 
Administrator promulgates such Federal implementation plan.

Section 302(y) defines the term ``Federal implementation plan'' in 
pertinent part, as:

    [A] plan (or portion thereof) promulgated by the Administrator 
to fill all or a portion of a gap or otherwise correct all or a 
portion of an inadequacy in a State implementation plan, and which 
includes enforceable emission limitations or other control measures, 
means or techniques (including economic incentives, such as 
marketable permits or auctions or emissions allowances) * * *.

Thus, because we determined that Hawaii failed to submit a Regional 
Haze SIP, we are required to promulgate a Regional Haze FIP.

III. Proposed Implementation Plan To Address Regional Haze in Hawaii

A. Affected Class I Areas

    In accordance with 40 CFR 51.308(d), we have identified two Class I 
areas within Hawaii: Hawaii Volcanoes NP on the Island of Hawaii, and 
Haleakala NP on the Island of Maui. EPA is responsible for developing 
RPGs for these two Class I areas. EPA has also determined that 
emissions from sources in Hawaii are not reasonably expected to have 
impacts at Class I areas in other states. See section III.G.1 below.

[[Page 31698]]

B. Baseline Visibility, Natural Visibility, and Uniform Rate of 
Progress

    As required by section 51.308(d)(2)(i) of the Regional Haze Rule 
and in accordance with our 2003 Natural Visibility Guidance, EPA 
calculated baseline/current and natural visibility conditions for the 
two Hawaii Class I areas, Hawaii Volcanoes NP and Haleakala NP, on the 
most impaired and least impaired days, as summarized below.\7\ The 
natural visibility conditions, baseline visibility conditions, and 
visibility impact reductions needed to achieve the Uniform Rate of 
Progress (URP) in 2018 for each of the two Hawaii Class I areas are 
presented in Table 1 and further explained in this section.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ Information presented here is based on the IMPROVE data 
presented at the WRAP Technical Support System (TSS) (http://vista.cira.colostate.edu/tss/). This information is available in the 
docket in the document titled ``Technical Support Document for the 
Proposed Action on the Federal Implementation Plan for the Regional 
Haze Program in the State of Hawaii,'' Air Division, EPA Region 9, 
May 14, 2012 [hereinafter ``FIP TSD''].

Table 1--Visibility Impact Reductions Needed Based on Best and Worst Days Baselines, Natural Conditions, and Uniform Rate of Progress for Hawaii Class I
                                                                          Areas
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                          20% Worst days                                   20% Best days
                                                         -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                   Hawaii class I area                                                    2018 Reduction   2064 Natural                    2064 Natural
                                                             2001-2004     2018 URP (dv)   needed (delta    conditions       2000-2004      conditions
                                                           baseline (dv)                      dv) \8\          (dv)        Baseline (dv)       (dv)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hawaii Volcanoes NP.....................................            18.9            16.2             2.7             7.2             4.1             2.2
Haleakala NP............................................            13.3            11.9             1.4             7.4             4.6             2.7
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. Estimating Natural Visibility Conditions
    Natural background visibility, as defined in our 2003 Natural 
Visibility Guidance, is estimated by calculating the expected light 
extinction using default estimates of natural concentrations of fine 
particle components adjusted by site-specific estimates of humidity. 
This calculation uses the IMPROVE equation, which is a formula for 
estimating light extinction from the estimated natural concentrations 
of fine particle components (or from components measured by the IMPROVE 
monitors). As documented in our 2003 Natural Visibility Guidance,\9\ 
EPA allows the use of ``refined'' or alternative approaches to this 
guidance to estimate the values that characterize the natural 
visibility conditions of Class I areas. One alternative approach is to 
develop and justify the use of alternative estimates of natural 
concentrations of fine particle components. Another alternative is to 
use the ``new IMPROVE equation'' that was adopted for use by the 
IMPROVE Steering Committee in December 2005 and the Natural Conditions 
II algorithm that was finalized in May 2007.\10\ The purpose of this 
refinement to the ``old IMPROVE equation'' is to provide more accurate 
estimates of the various factors that affect the calculation of light 
extinction.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ Since visibility conditions are expressed in terms of 
deciviews (dv), changes in visibility conditions are typically 
expressed in terms of ``delta deciviews'' or ``delta dv.''
    \9\ Guidance for Estimating Natural Visibility Conditions Under 
the Regional Haze Rule, September 2003 EPA-454/B-03-005, Appendix B 
Default Natural bext, dv, and 10th and 90th Percentile dv 
Values at All Mandatory Federal Class I Areas.
    \10\ The IMPROVE program is a cooperative measurement effort 
governed by a steering committee composed of representatives from 
Federal agencies (including representatives from EPA and the FLMs) 
and RPOs. The IMPROVE monitoring program was established in 1985 to 
aid the creation of Federal and State implementation plans for the 
protection of visibility in Class I areas. One of the objectives of 
IMPROVE is to identify chemical species and emission sources 
responsible for existing anthropogenic visibility impairment. The 
IMPROVE program has also been a key instrument in visibility-related 
research, including the advancement of monitoring instrumentation, 
analysis techniques, visibility modeling, policy formulation and 
source attribution field studies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For the two Class I Areas in Hawaii, EPA opted to use WRAP 
calculations in which the default estimates for the natural conditions 
(see Table 2) were combined with the ``new IMPROVE equation'' and the 
Natural Conditions II algorithm (see Table 3). This is an acceptable 
approach under our 2003 Natural Visibility Guidance. Table 2 shows the 
default natural visibility values for the 20% worst days and 20% best 
days.

Table 2--Default Natural Visibility Values for the 20% Best Days and 20%
                               Worst Days
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                          20% Worst days   20% Best days
              Class I area                     (dv)            (dv)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hawaii Volcanoes NP.....................            7.47            2.35
Haleakala NP............................            7.27            2.15
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA also referred to WRAP calculations using the new IMPROVE 
equation. Table 3 shows the natural visibility values for each Class I 
Area for the 20% worst days and 20% best days using the new IMPROVE 
Equation and Natural Conditions II algorithm.

 Table 3--Natural Visibility Values for the 20% Best Days and 20% Worst
                Days Using the New IMPROVE Equation \11\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                          20% Worst days   20% Best days
              Class I area                     (dv)            (dv)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hawaii Volcanoes NP.....................             7.2             2.2
Haleakala NP............................             7.4             2.7
------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 31699]]

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \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_NaturalCondIIpaper/Copeland_etal_NaturalConditionsII_Description.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The new IMPROVE equation takes into account the most recent review 
of the science \12\ and accounts for the effect of particle size 
distribution on light extinction efficiency of sulfate, nitrate, and 
organic carbon (OC). It also adjusts the mass multiplier for OC 
(particulate organic matter) by increasing it from 1.4 to 1.8. New 
terms were added to the equation to account for light extinction by sea 
salt and light absorption by gaseous nitrogen dioxide. Site-specific 
values are used for Rayleigh scattering (scattering of light due to 
atmospheric gases) to account for the site-specific effects of 
elevation and temperature. Separate relative humidity enhancement 
factors are used for small and large size distributions of ammonium 
sulfate and ammonium nitrate and for sea salt. The terms for the 
remaining contributors, EC (light-absorbing carbon), fine soil, and 
coarse mass terms, do not change between the original and new IMPROVE 
equations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ The science behind the revised IMPROVE equation is 
summarized in our FIP TSD, in the TSD for Technical Products 
Prepared by the WRAP in Support of Western Regional Haze Plans 
(``WRAP TSD''), February 28, 2011, and in numerous published papers. 
See for example: Hand, J.L., and Malm, W.C., 2006, Review of the 
IMPROVE Equation for Estimating Ambient Light Extinction 
Coefficients--Final Report. March 2006. Prepared for IMPROVE, 
Colorado State University, Cooperative Institute for Research in the 
Atmosphere, Fort Collins, Colorado, and Pitchford, Marc., 2006, 
Natural Haze Levels II: Application of the New IMPROVE Algorithm to 
Natural Species Concentrations Estimates. Final Report of the 
Natural Haze Levels II Committee to the RPO Monitoring/Data Analysis 
Workgroup. September 2006.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The natural visibility value estimations for 2064 do not include an 
estimate of the visibility impairment from the emissions from the 
Kilauea volcano, which is located in the Hawaii Volcanoes NP. The 
emissions from the volcano vary from year to year, and it is not 
possible to estimate the emissions from the volcano or the effect they 
will have on Class I area visibility in the year 2064. Therefore, in 
estimating natural conditions for purposes of this first planning 
period, we have assumed that there will be no visibility impact from 
the volcano.
2. Estimating Baseline Conditions
    As required by section 51.308(d)(2)(i) of the Regional Haze Rule 
and in accordance with our 2003 Natural Visibility Guidance, EPA 
calculated baseline visibility conditions for Hawaii Volcanoes NP and 
Haleakala NP. The baseline condition calculation begins with the 
calculation of light extinction, using the IMPROVE equation. The 
IMPROVE equation sums the light extinction \13\ resulting from 
individual pollutants, such as sulfates and nitrates. As with the 
natural visibility conditions calculation, EPA chose to use the new 
IMPROVE equation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ The amount of light lost as it travels over one million 
meters. The haze index, in units of deciviews, is calculated 
directly from the total light extinction, bext expressed 
in inverse megameters (Mm-1), as follows: HI = 10 
ln(bext/10).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The period for establishing baseline visibility conditions is 2000 
through 2004, and baseline conditions must be calculated using 
available monitoring data. 40 CFR 51.308(d)(2). This FIP proposes to 
use visibility monitoring data collected by IMPROVE monitors located in 
the two Hawaii Class I areas for the years 2001 through 2004 and the 
resulting baseline conditions represent an average for 2001 through 
2004. A complete year of monitoring data was not available for 2000; 
therefore, data from 2000 were not included in the baseline 
calculations. Table 4 shows the baseline conditions for the two Class I 
areas.

    Table 4--Baseline Conditions on 20% Worst Days and 20% Best Days
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                          20% Worst days   20% Best days
              Class I area                  (deciview)      (deciview)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hawaii Volcanoes NP.....................            18.9             4.1
Haleakala NP............................            13.3             4.6
------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. Summary of Baseline and Natural Conditions
    To address the requirements of 40 CFR 51.308(d)(2)(iv)(A), EPA also 
calculated the number of deciviews by which baseline conditions exceed 
natural visibility conditions at each Class I area. Table 5 shows the 
number of deciviews by which baseline conditions exceed natural 
visibility conditions at each Class I area.

Table 5--Number of Deciviews by Which Baseline Conditions Exceed Natural
                          Visibility Conditions
------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Class I area                20% Worst days   20% Best days
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hawaii Volcanoes NP.....................            11.7             1.9
Haleakala NP............................             5.8             1.9
------------------------------------------------------------------------

4. Uniform Rate of Progress
    In setting the RPGs, EPA reviewed the IMPROVE data to analyze and 
determine the URP needed to reach natural visibility conditions by the 
year 2064. In so doing, the analysis compared the baseline visibility 
conditions in each Class I area to the natural visibility conditions in 
each Class I area (as described above) and determined the URP needed in 
order to attain natural visibility conditions by 2064 in the two Class 
I areas. The analysis constructed the URP consistent with the 
requirements of the Regional Haze Rule and consistent with our 2003 
Tracking Progress Guidance by plotting a straight line from the 
baseline level of visibility impairment for 2000 through 2004 to the 
level of visibility conditions representing no anthropogenic impairment 
in 2064 for each Class I area. The URPs are summarized in Table 6. The 
degree of improvement to meet the URP at these sites is 1.4 deciviews 
at Haleakala NP and 2.7 deciviews at Hawaii Volcanoes NP.

[[Page 31700]]

                                             Table 6--Summary of Uniform Rate of Progress for 20% Worst Days
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                              Natural          Total                         2018 URP
                      Class I area                           Baseline       visibility      improvement    URP (dv/year)    visibility    Improvement by
                                                          condition (dv)       (dv)        by 2064 (dv)                     level  (dv)      2018 (dv)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hawaii Volcanoes NP.....................................            18.9             7.2            11.7            0.19            16.2             2.7
Haleakala NP............................................            13.3             7.5             5.8            0.09            11.9             1.4
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

5. Contribution Assessment According to IMPROVE Monitoring Data
    The visibility and pollutant contributions on the 20% worst 
visibility days for the baseline period (2000-2004) show variation 
across the two Class I areas in Hawaii. Table 7 shows average data from 
the IMPROVE monitors for 2001 through 2004.\14\ The table shows light 
extinction from specific pollutants as well as total extinction, as 
determined by the monitoring data. As stated above, these data provide 
further detail regarding the variation across the two Class I areas in 
Hawaii.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

                      Table 7--Species-Specific Light Extinction for the 20% Worst Days, Determined from 2001-2004 Monitoring Data
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                              Organic        Elemental
              Class I area                   Sulfate %       Nitrate %       carbon %        carbon %         Soil %        Sea salt %     Coarse mass %
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hawaii Volcanoes NP (18.9 deciviews)....              90               1               4               1               1               1               1
Haleakala NP \15\ (13.3 deciviews)......              61               9              10               5               1               4               9
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The visibility on the 20% worst days was 18.9 deciviews at Hawaii 
Volcanoes NP. Sulfate is the largest contributor to visibility 
impairment at the park, with the volcano contributing substantially to 
the impact. The visibility on the 20% worst days at Haleakala NP was 
13.3 deciviews. Sulfate is the largest contributor to visibility 
impairment at Haleakala NP, with the volcano contributing to the 
impact, although to a lesser extent than at the Hawaii Volcanoes NP. 
Nitrate from anthropogenic and natural sources contributes to 9% of the 
visibility degradation at the park. Coarse mass also contributes to 
about 9% of the visibility degradation at the park.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    Organic carbon contributes to 10% and elemental carbon contributes 
to 5% of the visibility impairment at the current monitoring site 
(HALE1), which is located outside the park. However, more recent data 
measured at the Haleakala Crater site (HACR1) site at the Haleakala 
National Park Border shows lower concentrations of organic and 
elemental carbon than the HALE1 monitoring site.16 17
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ Comparison of Haleakala National Park HALE1 and HACR1 
IMPROVE Monitoring Site 2007-2008 Data Sets, March 30, 2012, State 
of Hawaii, Department of Health, Clean Air Branch.
    \17\ Review of VIEWS2.0 2009-2010 Haleakala National Park 
Organic and Elemental Carbon Data, March 30, 2012, State of Hawaii, 
Department of Health, Clean Air Branch.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. Hawaii Emissions Inventories

1. Statewide Emissions Inventories
    40 CFR 51.308(d)(4)(v) requires that EPA maintain a statewide 
inventory of emissions of pollutants that are reasonably anticipated to 
cause or contribute to visibility impairment in any mandatory Class I 
Federal area. The inventory must include emissions for a baseline year, 
emissions for the most recent year for which data are available, and 
estimates of future projected emissions. The Regional Haze Rule does 
not specify the baseline year for the inventory, but EPA has 
recommended that 2002 be used as the inventory base year.\18\ 2002 is 
generally appropriate as the baseline year for Regional Haze SIPs 
because it corresponds with the 2000-2004 period for establishing 
baseline visibility conditions, based on available ambient monitoring 
data, pursuant to 40 CFR 51.308(d)(2)(i).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    For this first Hawaii Regional Haze implementation plan, Hawaii DOH 
initially selected 2005 as their base year because it was the most 
recent year with a full inventory when they began their technical 
work.\19\ Since 2005 is not within the baseline period of 2000-2004, 
EPA has performed a comparison of the aerosol composition of the 2005 
data and 2001-2004 data for each Class I Area. This analysis showed 
overall level and speciation of pollutants measured at the Class I area 
monitors in 2005 was consistent with the overall level and speciation 
of pollutants during the 2001-2004 baseline period. Since the measured 
visibility-impairing pollution in 2005 was consistent with the baseline 
years, it is reasonable to assume that the 2005 emissions were 
sufficiently consistent with the exmissions in 2000-2004 for this year 
to be used as the baseline for the Regional Haze Plan.\20\ Therefore, 
we propose to use 2005 as the base year inventory.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ Email from Priscilla Ligh, Hawaii DOH, to Gregg Nudd, EPA, 
May 3, 2012.
    \20\ Sections II.A.4 and II.B.4 of the FIP TSD.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The majority of the 2005, 2008, and 2018 inventories were derived 
from a 2010 study conducted by Environ on behalf of the Hawaii DOH.\21\ 
The numbers developed by Environ were then refined and improved by HI 
DOH.\22\ Between the time when the Environ Study was conducted and the 
development of this proposed FIP, EPA finalized a new model for the 
estimation of emissions from on-road vehicles. This

[[Page 31701]]

new model, MOVES, provides for a more accurate estimation of emissions 
from these sources. EPA worked with the University of North Carolina 
(UNC) and ICF International to develop a new emissions inventory for 
on-road vehicles for Hawaii for the years 2005, 2008 and 2018.\23\ 
Tables 8 through 10 reflect these revised emissions numbers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ ``Final Emission Inventory Report: Data Population for Air 
System for Hawaii Emissions Data (AirSHED),'' Environ International 
Corporation, April 12, 2010.
    \22\ See email from Priscilla Ligh, HI DOH to Greg Nudd, USEPA, 
on November 18, 2011 and associated document: ``RevA Emissions 
inventory response to EPA 11-17-11 for EPA.doc'' The document also 
explains any differences between the Hawaii DOH numbers and the 
emissions inventory in the National Emission Inventory for Hawaii.
    \23\ Technical Analysis for Hawaii's Regional Haze FIP Report--
Task 16: On-Road Mobile Emissions Inventory, ICF International, 
March 23, 2012.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA also worked with UNC and ICF to improve the 2018 emissions 
estimates for marine sources. Environ used the best data available at 
the time, but did not account for the impact of the economic recession 
on marine vessel activity, and cruise ships in particular. In addition, 
Environ did not take into account the impact of the North American 
Emissions Control Area (NAECA). The United States Government, together 
with Canada and France, established the NA ECA under the auspices of 
Annex VI of the International Convention for the Prevention of 
Pollution from Ships (MARPOL Annex VI), a treaty developed by the 
International Maritime Organization. This ECA will require use of lower 
sulfur fuels in ships operating within 200 nautical miles of the 
majority of the U.S. and Canadian coastline, including the U.S. Gulf 
Coast and Hawaii, beginning in August 2012. The ECA will result in 
lower NOX and SO2 emissions from marine sources 
in Hawaii. Therefore, UNC and ICF have updated the 2018 inventory to 
include the benefits of the ECA. The 2018 marine emissions estimates in 
Table 8 are based on this more recent work by UNC and ICF.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ ``Technical Analysis for Hawaii's Regional Haze FIP 
Report--Task 16: Commercial Marine Inventory,'' ICF International, 
April 2, 2012.
    \25\ Nautical miles.

                                 Table 8--Statewide Emissions Inventory for 2005
                                                 [Tons per year]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
         Source category                NOX             SO2             VOC             PM              NH3
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point Sources...................          22,745          27,072           2,695           3,536              12
Area Sources....................           1,509           3,716          16,920          33,408          11,136
Windblown Dust..................  ..............  ..............  ..............          46,808  ..............
Wildfire........................           2,156             591           4,729           9,771             540
Agricultural Burning............             406             178             535           1,567              60
Other fire......................               1  ..............               7               7  ..............
On-Road Mobile Sources..........          20,642             321          12,066             638           1,085
Non-Road Mobile Sources.........           4,750             534           6,121             484               5
Aircraft........................           1,541             135             262             165  ..............
In and Near Port Marine.........           2,572           2,201              92             183  ..............
Underway Marine (2, VOC and 
PM. As one can see from the tables above, the volcano dominates 
statewide SO2 emissions. Emissions from the volcano comprise 
over 96% of the SO2 emissions in 2005 and 2008. On days when 
the volcano is erupting and the winds are carrying those emissions over 
the Class I area monitors, these natural emissions will dominate the 
measurements. Nonanthropogenic sources also comprise the majority of 
VOC and PM emissions. Second, total statewide anthropogenic emissions 
of NOX and VOC are decreasing. Human-made NOX 
pollution is projected to be 21% lower in 2018 than in 2005. Human-made 
VOC pollution is projected to decrease by 11%. These reductions are 
primarily due to EPA regulations for on-road vehicles. Emissions from 
cars and trucks are decreasing dramatically, even accounting for 
economic and population growth. This is due to older, higher emitting 
vehicles being replaced by ones with more modern air pollution 
controls. NOX emissions in this category are projected to 
decrease by over 15,000 tpy and VOC emissions by over 8,000 tpy between 
2005 and 2018.
    However, anthropogenic SO2 emissions are expected to 
increase between 2005 and 2018, largely due to increased emissions from 
point sources. The lower sulfur marine fuels required by the ECA are 
expected to result in a 95% reduction in emissions from shipping, but 
those reductions are overwhelmed by the increases from point source 
emissions. The growth rate of point source emissions is very sensitive 
to assumptions about future economic growth. The Environ report, from 
which this data is derived, assumes robust economic growth between 2005 
and 2018. Given the economic recession that began in late 2008 this 
level of emission growth will likely over-predict future anthropogenic 
emissions. Nevertheless, this is the best data available.
    Our analysis of the monitoring data indicates that SO2 
is the principal pollutant of concern for this planning period. See 
section III.D below. The visibility impacts of NOX and VOC 
emissions are of secondary importance. Id. The increase in 
anthropogenic SO2 emissions indicates that additional 
pollution reductions are needed to ensure reasonable progress toward 
the goal of eliminating anthropogenic visibility impairment in Hawaii's 
mandatory class I areas. Our proposal to achieve these reductions is 
explained in section III.F of this notice.

D. Sources of Visibility Impairment in Hawaii Class I Areas

    In order to determine the significant sources contributing to haze 
in Hawaii's Class I areas, EPA relied upon the monitoring data from the 
IMPROVE network and the emission inventory for the State of Hawaii. EPA 
also reviewed the source apportionment analysis developed by Hawaii DOH 
\26\ as well as the source apportionment analysis by the National 
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).\27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ Haleakala NP Visibility Assessment, Hawai'i Volcanoes NP 
Visibility Assessment, and IMPROVE PMF Factor Identification notes 
Positive Matrix Factorization Analysis of HALE1 & HAVO1 IMPROVE data 
sets April 20, 2012, State of Hawaii, Department of Health, Clean 
Air Branch.
    \27\ M. Pitchford, ``Causes of Haze for Hawaii's Two Class I 
Areas'', presented at United States Department of Agriculture, 
Agricultural Air Quality Task Force Meeting, Wailea, Hawaii, 
November 13 and 15, 2005.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Table 11, below, shows the percentage contribution of different 
pollutant species to light extinction at the two Class I Areas in 
Hawaii on the 20% Worst Days in 2001 to 2004.

[[Page 31703]]

                      Table 11--Species-Specific Light Extinction Determined From 2001-2004 IMPROVE Monitoring Data--20% Worst Days
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                              Organic        Elemental
              Class I area                   Sulfate %       Nitrate %       carbon %        carbon %         Soil %        Sea salt %    Coarse  mass %
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hawaii Volcanoes NP.....................              90               1               4               1               1               1               1
Haleakala NP \28\.......................              61               9              10               5               1               4               9
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Sulfate is the largest cause of visibility degradation on the 20% 
worst days at both Haleakala NP and Hawaii Volcanoes NP. Natural causes 
of sulfate include the emissions from the Kilauea volcano, located in 
the Hawaii Volcanoes NP, and natural marine sulfates. The emissions and 
impact of the volcano varies substantially from year to year. Source 
apportionment assessments have estimated that the volcano causes 
approximately 90% of the visibility impairment at Hawaii Volcanoes NP 
and approximately 60% of the visibility impairment at Haleakala NP on 
the 20% worst days. The natural marine sulfate impact is expected to be 
much smaller.\29\ International transport may also contribute to sulfur 
visibility impairment. Anthropogenic sources of sulfur include oil 
combustion, and shipping.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ Data from the HALE Monitor, located outside Haleakala NP.
    \29\ Yvon and Saltzman 1996, Atmospheric Sulfur Cycling in the 
Tropical Marine Boundary Layer. J. Geophys. Res. 101, 6911-6918.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Nitrate contributes 9% to the visibility degradation on the 20% 
worst days at Haleakala. The major anthropogenic sources of nitrate on 
Maui are point sources, on-road and non-road mobile sources, and 
shipping. Nitrate contributes 1% to the visibility degradation on the 
20% worst days at Hawaii Volcanoes NP.
    Organic Carbon contributes to 10% of the visibility degradation at 
the Haleakala (HALE1) monitor, which is located outside of the park. A 
comparison of monitoring data at the Haleakala Crater (HACR1) IMPROVE 
monitoring site at the Haleakala Site boundary shows approximately half 
the level of organic carbon of the HALE1 site.\30\ Sources of organic 
carbon include agricultural burning, oil combustion, and international 
transport. Organic Carbon contributes 4% of the visibility degradation 
at the Hawaii Volcanoes NP during the 2001-2004 time period, although 
more recent data from 2005-2009 indicate that organic carbon 
contributes to 1% of the visibility impairment for the 20% worst days.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ Review of VIEWS2.0 2009-2010 Haleakala NP Organic and 
Elemental Carbon Data, March 30, 2012, State of Hawaii, Department 
of Health, Clean Air Branch, and Comparison of Haleakala NP HALE1 
and HACR1 IMPROVE Monitoring Site 2007-2008 Data Sets, March 30, 
2012, State of Hawaii, Department of Health, Clean Air Branch.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Elemental Carbon contributes to 5% of the visibility degradation at 
the Haleakala (HALE1) monitor, which is located outside of the park. A 
comparison of recent monitoring at the Haleakala Crater monitoring site 
at Haleakala NP (HACR1) shows a lower level of elemental carbon of the 
HALE1 site.
    Coarse mass contributes to 9% of the visibility degradation at the 
Haleakala (HALE1) monitor. The sources of coarse mass include fugitive 
dust, international transport, and shipping. Soil contributes to 1% of 
the visibility degradation at each of the Class I Areas. The soil 
impact varies seasonally, with the highest levels in the springtime, 
and appears to be associated with international transport.
    EPA has evaluated the six particulate pollutants (ammonium sulfate, 
ammonium nitrate, organic carbon (OC), elemental carbon (EC), fine soil 
and coarse mass (CM)) that contribute to visibility impairment at 
Hawaii's two mandatory Class I federal areas, and determined that the 
first Regional Haze Plan RP evaluation should focus primarily on 
significant sources of SO2 (sulfate precursor). 
NOX (nitrate precursor) is a secondary concern.
    The sources of coarse mass (CM) are uncertain because of emission 
inventory limitations associated with natural sources (predominantly 
wildfires) and uncertainty of fugitive (windblown) emissions. Because 
of the difficulty in attributing the sources of visibility impairment 
for this pollutant, EPA has determined that it is not reasonable in 
this planning period to recommend emission control measures for coarse 
mass. Coarse mass contribution to visibility impairment, emissions 
sources, and potential control measures should be addressed in future 
Regional Haze plan updates.
    Because fine soil appears to be primarily attributable to 
international transport, EPA has determined that it is not reasonable 
in this planning period to recommend emission control measures for fine 
soil. Although organic and elemental carbon contribute to base year 
visibility impairment, recent monitoring at the Haleakala Crater 
(HACR1) monitoring site and the Hawaii Volcanoes (HAVO1) show low 
contributions to visibility impairment from organic and elemental 
carbon.

E. Best Available Retrofit Technology Evaluation

1. Identification of BART-Eligible Sources
    The first step of a BART evaluation is to identify all the BART-
eligible sources within the state's boundaries. In 2008, the Hawaii DOH 
conducted a survey of the major sources in the state to identify which 
sources were BART eligible. This survey was completed and certified by 
the responsible official at each major source. Through that process, 
the following facilities were identified as BART-eligible: Hawaiian 
Commercial & Sugar Company (HC&S) Puunene facility, Chevron Refinery, 
Tesoro Refinery, Hu Honua Bioenergy--Pepeekeo facility, Maui Electric 
Company (MECO)--Kahului facility, Hawaii Electric Light Company (HELCO) 
Kanoelehua Hill, Hawaiian Electric Company (HECO)--Waiau facility, 
HECO--Kahe facility. We propose to determine that each of these 
facilities is BART-eligible.
2. Identification of Sources Subject to BART
    The second step of the BART evaluation is to identify those BART-
eligible 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 BART-eligible sources from further BART review 
because they may not reasonably be anticipated to cause or contribute 
to any visibility impairment in a Class I area. We propose to use the 
dispersion modeling that the Hawaii DOH's consultant performed.\31\ 
This modeling assessed the extent of each BART-eligible source's 
contribution to visibility impairment at the Class I

[[Page 31704]]

areas, consistent with the BART Guidelines.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

a. Modeling Methodology
    The BART Guidelines provide that we may use the CALPUFF \32\ 
modeling system or another appropriate model to predict the visibility 
impacts from a single source on a Class I area and to, therefore, 
determine whether an individual source is anticipated to cause or 
contribute to impairment of visibility in Class I areas, i.e., ``is 
subject to BART.'' The Guidelines state that we find CALPUFF is the 
best regulatory modeling application currently available for predicting 
a single source's contribution to visibility impairment (70 FR 39162 
(July 6, 2005)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \32\ Note that our reference to CALPUFF encompasses the entire 
CALPUFF modeling system, which includes the CALMET, CALPUFF, and 
CALPOST models and other pre and post processors. The different 
versions of CALPUFF have corresponding versions of CALMET, CALPOST, 
etc. which may not be compatible with previous versions (e.g., the 
output from a newer version of CALMET may not be compatible with an 
older version of CALPUFF). The different versions of the CALPUFF 
modeling system are available from the model developer at http://www.src.com/calpuff/calpuff1.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The BART Guidelines indicate that a modeling protocol be developed 
for determining individual source attributions. The State of Hawaii's 
contractor, Alpine Geophysics, developed a protocol, which was reviewed 
by the State of Hawaii and EPA.\33\ Although the BART Guidelines 
recommend use of a minimum of three years of mesoscale meteorological 
model output for conducting this type of analysis, only one year (2005) 
of mesoscale meteorological data was available at the time this 
protocol was developed.\34\ Therefore, emissions were modeled over a 
one-year period using the 2005 mesoscale meteorological data.\35\ 
Consistent with the BART Guidelines, this modeling was based on maximum 
actual 24-hour emissions for each source. EPA believes that this 
modeling provides a reasonable estimate of daily visibility impacts 
above estimated natural conditions at each Class I area. Therefore, we 
propose to use the results of this CALPUFF modeling to determine 
whether each BART-eligible source has a significant impact on 
visibility.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \33\ Subject-to-Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART) and 
Reasonable Progress (RP) Prioritization Modeling Protocol for the 
State of Hawaii Application of the CALPUFF Modeling System, November 
30, 2009, Alpine Geophysics, LLC.
    \34\ MM5 Application for 2005 Over the Hawaiian Islands, 
prepared for Hawaii State Department of Health, Environmental 
Management Division, Clean Air Branch Prepared by: Alpine 
Geophysics, LLC.
    \35\ Three years (2005, 2006, 2007) of MM5 data have since been 
prepared for HECO. MM5 Meteorological Dataset Development for 
Hawaii, Draft December 2008, JCA. EPA has not reviewed this 
additional data, but may evaluate and consider this data for future 
visibility actions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

b. Contribution Threshold
    For the modeling to determine the applicability of BART to single 
sources, the BART Guidelines note that the first step is to set a 
contribution threshold to assess whether the impact of a single source 
is sufficient to cause or contribute to visibility impairment at a 
Class I area. The BART Guidelines state that, ``[a] single source that 
is responsible for a 1.0 deciview change or more should be considered 
to `cause' visibility impairment.'' 70 FR 39161, July 5, 2005. The BART 
Guidelines also state that ``the appropriate threshold for determining 
whether a source contributes to visibility impairment may reasonably 
differ across states,'' but, ``[a]s a general matter, any threshold 
that you use for determining whether a source `contributes' to 
visibility impairment should not be higher than 0.5 deciviews.'' Id. 
Further, in setting a contribution threshold, states or EPA should 
``consider the number of emissions sources affecting the Class I areas 
at issue and the magnitude of the individual sources' impacts.'' The 
Guidelines affirm that states and EPA are free to use a lower threshold 
if they conclude that the location of a large number of BART-eligible 
sources in proximity to a Class I area justifies this approach.
    For its analysis, Hawaii chose to use the recommended 0.5 deciview 
threshold for subject-to-BART determination and RP prioritization. EPA 
believes this threshold is appropriate, based on the number of sources 
affecting the Class I areas and the magnitude of the individual sources 
impacts. Therefore, we propose to use a contribution threshold of 0.5 
deciviews for determining which sources are subject to BART.
c. Sources Identified by EPA as Subject to BART
    The CALPUFF modeling analysis was performed to determine which 
BART-eligible sources in Hawaii are subject to BART.\36\ The modeling 
assessment looked at the HC&S Puunene facility, the Chevron Refinery, 
the Tesoro Refinery, the Hu Honua Bioenergy--Pepeekeo facility, the 
MECO--Kahului facility, the HELCO Kanoelehua Hill facility, the HECO--
Waiau facility, and the HECO--Kahe facility. The only facilities that 
showed a 98th percentile (8th high) 24-hour average visibility impact 
over the 0.5 delta deciview impact threshold were the Hu Honua 
Bioenergy--Pepeekeo and the HELCO--Kanoelehua Hill facilities. Thus, 
the Hu Honua Bioenergy--Pepeekeo and the HELCO--Kanoelehua Hill 
facilities are subject to BART. The remaining facilities; HC&S Puunene 
facility, the Chevron Refinery, the Tesoro Refinery, the MECO--Kahului 
facility, the HECO--Waiau facility, and the HECO--Kahe facility are not 
subject to BART.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    As shown in Table 12, EPA proposes to exempt six of the eight BART-
eligible sources in the State from further review under the BART 
requirements. The visibility impacts attributable to each of these 
sources fell below 0.5 deciviews. Our proposed contribution threshold 
captures those sources responsible for most of the total visibility 
impacts, while still excluding other sources with very small impacts.
    The results of the CALPUFF modeling are summarized in Table 12. 
Those facilities listed with demonstrated impacts at all Class I areas 
less than 0.5 deciviews are proposed by EPA to not be subject to BART; 
those with impacts greater than 0.5 deciviews are proposed by EPA to be 
subject to BART.

              Table 12--Individual BART-Eligible Source Visibility Impacts on Hawaii Class I Areas
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                             Maximum 24-
                                                                              hour 98th
                                                                             percentile      Subject to BART or
        Source and unit                        Class I area                  visibility            exempt
                                                                               impact
                                                                             (deciview)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HC&S Puunene facility           Haleakala Hawaii Volcanoes...............           0.059  Exempt.
 (Bagasse).                                                                         0.008

[[Page 31705]]

 
HC&S Puunene facility (Coal)..  Haleakala Hawaii Volcanoes...............           0.133  Exempt.
                                                                                    0.039
Chevron Refinery..............  Haleakala Hawaii Volcanoes...............           0.021  Exempt.
                                                                                    0.016
Tesoro Refinery...............  Haleakala Hawaii Volcanoes...............           0.025  Exempt.
                                                                                    0.017
Hu Honua Bioenergy--Pepeekeo    Haleakala Hawaii Volcanoes...............           0.323  Subject to BART.
 facility.                                                                          0.540
MECO--Kahului facility........  Haleakala Hawaii Volcanoes...............           0.232  Exempt.
                                                                                    0.108
HELCO Kanoelehua Hill.........  Haleakala Hawaii Volcanoes...............           0.808  Subject to BART.
                                                                                    2.334
HECO--Waiau facility..........  Haleakala Hawaii Volcanoes...............           0.083  Exempt.
                                                                                    0.038
HECO--Kahe facility...........  Haleakala Hawaii Volcanoes...............           0.221  Exempt.
                                                                                    0.132
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The owner of the Hu Honua Bioenergy relinquished the facility's 
existing permit on September 16, 2010 and the facility was issued a new 
permit on August 31, 2011, which allows the facility to burn only non-
fossil fuels.\37\ Since the facility can no longer burn fossil fuels, 
it is no longer BART-eligible and thus not subject to BART. Therefore, 
the only subject-to-BART source in Hawaii is the HELCO Kanoelehua Hill 
facility.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \37\ Letter from Stuart Yamada, Hawaii DOH, to John C. Silvia, 
Hu Honua Bioenergy (August 31, 2011) attaching Covered Source Permit 
(CSP) No. 0724-01-C and Covered Source Permit Review Summary.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. BART Determination for Kanoelehua Hill
    The third step of a BART evaluation is to perform the BART 
analysis. The BART Guidelines (70 FR 39164 (July 6, 2005)) describe the 
BART analysis as consisting of the following five steps:
     Step 1: Identify All Available Retrofit Control 
Technologies;
     Step 2: Eliminate Technically Infeasible Options;
     Step 3: Evaluate Control Effectiveness of Remaining 
Control Technologies;
     Step 4: Evaluate Impacts and Document the Results; and
     Step 5: Evaluate Visibility Impacts.
    In determining BART, the state, or EPA if implementing a FIP, must 
consider the five statutory factors in section 169A of the CAA: (1) The 
costs of compliance; (2) the energy and non-air quality environmental 
impacts of compliance; (3) any existing pollution control technology in 
use at the source; (4) the remaining useful life of the source; and (5) 
the degree of improvement in visibility which may reasonably be 
anticipated to result from the use of such technology. See also 40 CFR 
51.308(e)(1)(ii)(A). The actual visibility impact analysis occurs 
during steps 4 and 5 of the process.
    As mentioned previously, the only source in Hawaii subject to BART 
is the Kanoelehua Hill Generating Station (Hill) on the Island of 
Hawaii (the Big Island). Specifically, there are two residual fuel oil-
fired boilers at this plant that are subject to BART (Hill 5 and Hill 
6). Hill 5 is a 14 megawatt (MW) front-fired boiler. Hill 6 is a 21 MW 
tangentially fired boiler. Both boilers currently burn residual oil 
with a sulfur content not to exceed 2% by weight. Table 13 summarizes 
the baseline emission rates and modeled visibility impact of these 
sources. The annual emissions are based on 2009 operations because 2009 
was the most current, complete year of data available when this 
modeling was performed in 2010.

       Table 13--Baseline Emissions and Visibility Impacts of Hill
------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
SO2 emissions..................  tons per year [tpy].........      2,778
NOX emissions..................  tpy.........................        735
PM emissions...................  tpy.........................         70
Visibility impact on             delta dv....................       0.44
 Haleakala.\38\
Visibility impact on Hawaii      delta dv....................       1.56
 Volcanoes NP.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Trinity Consulting, on behalf of HELCO, the plant operator, 
performed a five-factor analysis for this plant.\39\ We have reviewed 
this analysis and believe it adequately addresses the five BART 
factors. Although the BART guidelines are not mandatory for Hill 
because the plant's total generating capacity is less than 750 
megawatts, the Trinity analysis is generally consistent with the 
guidelines. Our analysis of the five factors is largely based on the 
Trinity report.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \38\ These results from Trinity's modeling indicate a lower 
impact than Alpine's modeling. However, even with Trinity's 
modeling, the baseline impacts are high enough to make the source 
subject to BART.
    \39\ BART Five-Factor Analysis Prepared for Hawaiian Electric 
Light Company, October 2010, Trinity Consultants.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

a. BART for NOX and Particulate Matter (PM)
    The Trinity report appropriately examined BART controls for 
NOX and PM. However, due to the overwhelming contribution of 
sulfate to visibility impairment at the nearby Hawaii

[[Page 31706]]

Volcanoes Class I area, it is unlikely that reductions in these 
pollutants from Hill would have a measurable impact on visibility at 
that area.
    For PM, the Trinity report considered the following technologies: 
Dry electrostatic precipitator (ESP), wet ESP, fabric filter, wet 
scrubber, cyclone and fuel switching. Dry ESPs, cyclones and fabric 
filters are not appropriate for the type of particulate emitted by this 
plant. A wet scrubber would work, but these types of devices are better 
suited to larger particulate than is emitted from an oil-fired boiler 
and their control efficiency would be small. A wet ESP would have good 
control efficiency and is technically feasible. Similarly, switching to 
distillate fuel would be an effective and technically feasible control 
for PM. Trinity estimated the cost effectiveness of a wet ESP as 
$13,000 per ton of PM controlled. They estimated the cost effectiveness 
of switching to distillate fuel as $170,000 per ton. Neither of these 
controls would be cost effective for PM.
    For NOX, the Trinity report considered both combustion 
controls such as flue gas recirculation and low-NOX burners 
as well as post-combustion controls such as selective catalytic 
reduction (SCR). There were no technical barriers to implementing any 
of these controls. The post-combustion controls were not found to be 
cost effective. Low-NOX burners were found to be cost 
effective by the Trinity report. However, given the monitoring data on 
Hawaii, EPA finds that the emission reductions provided by low-
NOX burners is unlikely to provide a measurable visibility 
benefit at Hawaii Volcanoes or Haleakala.
    Based on our consideration of the five BART factors, EPA has 
determined that no control for NOX and PM at the Hill plant 
is consistent with BART, given the unique conditions in Hawaii. 
NOX reductions may need to be pursued in future planning 
periods as anthropogenic sulfates are reduced and nitrates become a 
larger portion of anthropogenic visibility impairment.
b. BART for SO2
    The principal visibility-impairing pollutant from the Hill Plant is 
SO2. As explained above, sulfates are the largest component 
of visibility impairment at Hawaii Volcanoes and at Haleakela, even on 
the best days. The Hill Plant is by far the largest source of 
anthropogenic SO2 emissions on the Big Island.
    The Trinity report considered both flue gas desulfurization (FGD) 
and fuel switching as possible controls. The report found that no other 
oil-fired electric generating unit had installed FGD technology and due 
to the lack of industry experience, the technology was infeasible. EPA 
agrees that FGD technology is unproven for this application and concurs 
with Trinity's decision to focus on fuel switching. However, the 
Trinity analysis only looked at switching to distillate fuel oil. 
Distillate fuel oil is substantially more expensive than residual fuel 
oil and it provides less energy per gallon. As a result, it is not a 
cost effective control measure.
    EPA requested HECO to consider switching to lower sulfur residual 
fuel oil, which would be a less expensive option. HECO responded with 
its own cost effectiveness estimate.\40\ The lowest cost option, 
residual fuel oil no more than 1% sulfur by weight, had a cost 
effectiveness of between $6,677/ton and $7,363/ton.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \40\ Letter from Brenner Munger, Manager, Environmental 
Department, Hawaiian Electric Company to Tom Webb, U.S. EPA Region 
9, January 27, 2012.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA considered this cost estimate to be too high in light of 
available market data and conducted our own analysis, which is 
summarized in Table 14, below, and further explained in the TSD for 
this action.

     Table 14--Cost and Benefits of Switching to 1% Sulfur Fuel Oil
------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Baseline Weight % Sulfur [S]............................            1.57
Baseline Fuel Consumption [gal/yr]......................      18,650,604
Baseline Emissions [tons SO2/yr]........................           2,344
New Fuel Weight % S.....................................            1.00
Cost Differential [$/gal]...............................           0.255
Controlled Emissions [tons SO2/yr]......................           1,493
Annual Costs [$/yr].....................................       4,755,904
Annual Emission Reductions [tons SO2/yr]................             851
Cost Efficiency [$/ton SO2 reduced].....................           5,587
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Based on this analysis, EPA estimates that requiring a switch to 1% 
sulfur fuel oil would result in a reduction in SO2 emissions 
of 851 tons per year and an increase in fuel costs of over $4.7 
million/year. Thus, the cost effectiveness of this control option is 
estimated to be approximately $5,600/ton. EPA contracted with the 
energy economics consulting firm Energy Strategies to estimate the 
impact of these increased fuel costs on electric rates.\41\ Based on 
its analysis, these increased costs would translate into a roughly 1% 
increase in retail electric rates on the Big Island.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \41\ Fuel Cost Screening Tool (r1 4-18-12), Energy Strategies 
Incorporated, April 18, 2012.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The next factors to consider are: (2) The energy and non-air 
quality environmental impacts of compliance; (3) any existing pollution 
control technology in use at the source; and (4) the remaining useful 
life of the source. There are no existing pollution controls at the 
site for SO2. We have considered factors (2) and (4) in the 
context of the Hawaii Clean Energy Initiative, a collaborative effort 
by the State of Hawaii, the U.S. Department of Energy and various other 
stakeholders. The Initiative's ultimate goal is meeting 70% of the 
state's energy needs through energy efficiency and renewable energy by 
2030. One of the key pieces of legislation aimed at achieving this goal 
is Hawaii's 2009 Clean Energy Omnibus Bill (ACT 155 (09), HB 1464, 
signed June 25, 2009). This statute calls for 30% reduction in the 
state's energy use via efficiency and increases the state's renewable 
portfolio standard to 40% by 2030. EPA contracted with UNC and ICF to 
project the 2018 emissions of power plants considering the requirements 
of the Clean Energy Omnibus Bill.\42\ These projections are compared to 
the current 2018 projections based on the most recent Integrated 
Resource Plan (IRP) for Hawaii electric utilities. This IRP predates 
the 2009 bill and so does not account for its requirements. Table 15 
compares the baseline emission projections for 2018, derived from the 
current IRP and the projections that take into account the requirements 
of the Clean Energy Bill.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \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.''

[[Page 31707]]

         Table 15--Range of 2018 Emissions Projections for Hill
                             [Tons per year]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                             2018 SO2        2018 SO2
                                             emissions       emissions
                                         -------------------------------
                                                           Clean energy
                                                IRP            bill
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kanoelehua Hill Generating Station......           3,264             765
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The projections based on the goals of the Clean Energy Bill assume 
that the energy conservation and renewable energy goals will be met in 
a more or less even fashion year to year. So, by 2018, most of these 
projects will be in place. This is a fairly optimistic scenario, but it 
gives some insight into the impact of the Clean Energy Bill. By 2018, 
Hill is projected to be operating at a significantly lower capacity 
factor and/or burning biofuels with much less sulfur. Although the 
resulting reductions in sulfur emissions are not enforceable 
requirements, they suggest that SO2 emissions from Hill may 
decrease even in the absence of any BART requirements. This analysis 
also indicates that at least some of the units at Hill may be coming to 
the end of their useful life within the next 20 years.
    The final factor to consider is the visibility benefits of 
controls. Under the BART Guidelines, the improved visibility in 
deciviews from installing controls is determined by using the CALPUFF 
air quality model. CALPUFF, generally, simulates the transport and 
dispersion of emissions, and the conversion of SO2 to 
particulate sulfate and NOX to particulate nitrate, at a 
rate dependent on meteorological conditions and background ozone 
concentration. These concentrations are then converted to delta 
deciviews by the CALPOST post-processor. The CALPUFF modeling system is 
available and documented at EPA's Model Distribution Web page.\43\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \43\ EPA's Model Distribution Web page available at: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/scram/dispersion_prefrec.htm#calpuff.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The ``delta deciviews'' for control options estimated by the 
modeling represents a BART source's impact on visibility at the Class I 
areas under different control scenarios. Each modeled day and location 
in the Class I area will have an associated delta deciviews for each 
control option. For each day, the model finds the maximum visibility 
impact of all locations (i.e., receptors) in the Class I area. From 
among these daily values, the BART Guidelines recommend use of the 98th 
percentile, for comparing the base case and the effects of various 
controls.
    In its BART analysis for Hill, Trinity modeled the lower emission 
rates associated with lower sulfur fuels and estimated the following 
visibility benefits. The delta deciview (delta dv) impact from Hill 
decreased from 1.56 for baseline conditions to 1.05 when burning the 1% 
sulfur fuel, which represents an approximately 0.5 dv benefit.
    Taking into consideration all of these factors, we propose to 
determine that BART for Hill is no additional controls. In particular, 
although we consider 0.5 dv to be a significant improvement in 
visibility, we do not believe it justifies the imposition of a control 
with a cost effectiveness of approximately $5,600/ton in this case. We 
are particularly concerned about unduly increasing electricity rates in 
Hawaii, given that these rates are already three times the national 
average according to the Energy Information Agency.\44\ Therefore, we 
propose to determine that no BART controls be required for Hill.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    Nonetheless, as explained below, our reasonable progress analysis 
shows that some additional SO2 controls are needed on the 
Big Island in order to protect against degradation of visibility and 
that Hill may be an appropriate source for such SO2 
reductions.

F. Reasonable Progress Goals for Hawaii

    In determining if reasonable progress is being made, states, or EPA 
if implementing a FIP, are required to consider the following factors 
established in section 169A of the CAA and in our Regional Haze Rule at 
40 CFR 51.308(d)(1)(i)(A): (1) The costs of compliance; (2) the time 
necessary for compliance; (3) the energy and non-air quality 
environmental impacts of compliance; and (4) the remaining useful life 
of any potentially affected sources (``the four RP factors''). Once 
these factors have been considered, the typical method for determining 
if a state is making reasonable progress is to use meteorological and 
air quality computer models to predict the visibility at Class I areas 
for the end of the planning period (2018). Those modeling results are 
then assessed to ensure that visibility is not degrading on the best 
days and that it is improving on the worst days at a reasonable rate, 
taking into consideration the relevant statutory factors, as well as 
the base period visibility conditions and the goal of zero 
anthropogenic visibility impairment by 2064.
    In the case of Hawaii, though, a different method of determining 
reasonable progress is required. As explained above in sections III.C.1 
and III.D, the dominant cause of visibility impairment at Hawaii's 
Class I areas is sulfate compounds and over 96% of the sulfate 
emissions in Hawaii are from the volcano. However, because the volcanic 
eruptions vary greatly from year to year with no discernible pattern, 
it is impossible to predict future volcanic emissions. The emissions 
vary by hundreds of thousands of tons per year. As a result, there is 
little value in attempting to model visibility at the Class I areas in 
2018.
1. Identification of Pollutants for Reasonable Progress
    EPA has evaluated the six particulate pollutants (ammonium sulfate, 
ammonium nitrate, organic carbon (OC), elemental carbon (EC), fine soil 
and coarse mass (CM)) that contribute to visibility impairment at 
Hawaii's two mandatory Class I federal areas. Sulfate is the primary 
cause of visibility impairment at each of Hawaii's Class I Areas, and 
EPA has determined that the first Regional Haze Plan RP evaluation 
should focus primarily on significant sources of SO2 
(sulfate precursor). NOX (nitrate precursor) is a secondary 
concern, as it contributes to 9% of the visibility degradation on the 
20% worst days at Haleakala.
    Coarse mass contributes to 9% of the visibility degradation at 
Haleakala, and is also of concern. However, the sources of coarse mass 
(CM) are uncertain because of emission inventory limitations associated 
with natural sources (predominantly wildfires) and uncertainty of 
fugitive (windblown) emissions. Because of the difficulty in 
attributing the sources of visibility impairment for this pollutant, 
EPA has

[[Page 31708]]

determined that it is not reasonable in this planning period to 
recommend emission control measures for coarse mass. Coarse mass 
contribution to visibility impairment, emissions sources, and potential 
control measures should be addressed in future Regional Haze plan 
updates.
    Because fine soil appears to be primarily attributable to 
international transport, EPA is proposing to determine that it is not 
reasonable in this planning period to recommend emission control 
measures for fine soil. Although organic and elemental carbon 
contribute to base year visibility impairment, recent monitoring at the 
Haleakala Crater (HACR1) monitoring site and the Hawaii Volcanoes 
(HAVO1) site show low contributions to visibility impairment from 
organic and elemental carbon.
2. Determining Reasonable Progress Through Island-Specific Emissions 
Inventories
    Due to the absence of modeling to project visibility at Hawaii's 
Class I areas in 2018, EPA is focusing its reasonable progress analysis 
on reducing anthropogenic emissions of visibility-impairing pollution. 
As explained in section III.D above, the key anthropogenic pollutants 
of concern are SO2 and NOX, especially 
SO2. We looked at trends in emissions of anthropogenic 
SO2 and NOX in order to judge if reasonable 
progress is being achieved.
    Rather than use a full statewide inventory to judge reasonable 
progress, we focused on the inventories for the islands where the Class 
I areas are located: Maui and the island of Hawaii (``the Big 
Island''). Population, economic activity and therefore anthropogenic 
emissions in the State of Hawaii are concentrated on the island of 
Oahu. But, as explained below, our analysis indicates that those 
emissions do not significantly impair visibility at the Class I areas. 
Prevailing winds at the Honolulu Airport on Oahu are from the east-
north-east.\45\ The prevailing winds on Maui are from the 
northeast.\46\ The Class I areas are south and east of Oahu. Therefore, 
these trade winds tend to transport pollution from Oahu away from the 
Class I areas. In addition, modeling performed to estimate the 
visibility impact of currently operating individual sources of 
pollution on the Class I areas in the state indicates that even very 
large sources on Oahu have relatively small visibility impacts on 
Haleakela.\47\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \45\ See prevailing winds data from the Western Regional Climate 
Center (http://www.wrcc.dri.edu/htmlfiles/westwinddir.html#HAWAII).
    \46\ Ibid.
    \47\ See Table VII-1 of the FIP TSD.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Given these modeling results and the prevailing winds in Oahu and 
Maui for this planning period, we have focused our RP analysis on the 
islands that contain the Class I areas. Tables 16 and 17 show the 
emission inventories for the islands of Maui and Hawaii.\48\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \48\ See Emissions Inventory chapter of the FIP TSD for 
information on the development of these inventories.

                                Table 16--Maui Anthropogenic Emissions Inventory
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                          2005 Inventory                  2018 Inventory
                 Source category                 ---------------------------------------------------------------
                                                        NOX             SO2             NOX             SO2
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point...........................................           4,492           4,559           4,597           4,625
Nonpoint........................................             462             481             548             571
On-Road Mobile..................................           2,957              47             758              10
Non-Road Mobile.................................             496              57             305               2
Aircraft........................................             310              27             376              33
Agricultural Burning............................             298             132             298             132
Wildfires.......................................              52              14              52              14
in/near port Marine.............................             699             569             836              32
                                                 ---------------------------------------------------------------
    Total.......................................           9,765           5,887           7,770           5,420
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                         Table 17--Hawaii (Big Island) Anthropogenic Emissions Inventory
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                          2005 Inventory                  2018 Inventory
                 Source category                 ---------------------------------------------------------------
                                                        NOX             SO2             NOX             SO2
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point...........................................           1,036           4,551           1,736           5,266
Nonpoint........................................           1,849             808           1,882             872
On-Road Mobile..................................           3,217              53             839              11
Non-Road Mobile.................................             784              95             428               1
Aircraft........................................             177              18             207              21
Agricultural Burning............................               2               0               2               0
Wildfires.......................................           1,712             469           1,712             469
in/near port Marine.............................             537             418             546              20
                                                 ---------------------------------------------------------------
    Total.......................................           9,314           6,412           7,352           6,661
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. Four Factor Analysis for NOX Sources on Maui and the Big 
Island
    As shown in tables 16 and 17, mobile sources (on-road, non-road, 
aircraft and marine) constitute the largest fraction of base-year 
emissions on both islands (48%). The NOX emissions from 
these categories are projected to drop by over 7,100 tpy between 2005 
and 2018. These decreases are largely attributable to a dramatic 
reduction in emissions from on-road mobile sources, resulting from the 
replacement of older, higher emitting vehicles with new vehicles that 
must meet more stringent standards under the Clean Air Act. In addition 
to these requirements for on-road sources, EPA regulations also require 
newer non-

[[Page 31709]]

road and marine mobile sources to meet stricter control requirements. 
Collectively, these federal mobile source requirements will result in 
substantial NOX reductions over the course of the first 
planning period.
    Point sources, and in particular electric utility units, also 
comprise a significant portion of NOX emissions on both 
islands. However, considering the costs of compliance, the projected 
20% net reduction in NOX emissions from existing regulations 
and the small contribution of nitrates to visibility impairment, EPA 
does not consider it reasonable to require additional NOX 
controls for point sources in this planning period.
    The two remaining anthropogenic NOX emissions sources on 
the islands are agricultural burning and wildfires. EPA has evaluated 
the monitoring data for the Class I areas and determined that there is 
no evidence that agricultural burning is significantly affecting 
visibility at the Class I areas.\49\ Wildfires have been included in 
the anthropogenic emissions inventory because Hawaii DOH and EPA have 
not been able to determine if the fires had natural causes or not. 
However, imposing restrictions on wildfires would not have any 
appreciable effect, since they are, by definition, not intentional.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    In sum, taking into consideration the four RP factors and the 
relatively small contribution of NOX to visibility 
impairment at Hawaii's Class I areas, we propose not to require any 
additional NOX controls for this implementation period.
4. Four Factor Analysis for SO2 Emissions on Maui
    Our analysis shows that existing requirements under the Clean Air 
Act will result in net reductions of anthropogenic emissions of 
SO2 on Maui during this first planning period. So it is 
reasonable to assume that the visibility at Haleakala on the best days 
is not getting worse. Similarly, with this drop in emissions, it is 
reasonable to assume that the visibility on the worst days will 
improve.
a. Mobile Source SO2 Emissions on Maui
    Mobile source SO2 emissions on Maui (on-road, non-road, 
aircraft and marine) are expected to decrease by 89% under current 
regulations, primarily as a result of reductions in marine emissions 
due to the ECA. This control measure is in addition to the benefits of 
fleet turnover as described above in the discussion of NOX. 
Given the existing benefits from the ECA and the fleet turnover 
benefits that take into account the four factors, we propose to 
determine that no additional SO2 reductions from mobile 
sources on Maui are needed in order to show reasonable progress.
b. Point Source SO2 Emissions on Maui
    Point Sources comprise 77% of the SO2 emissions on Maui 
and are expected to increase slightly by 2018. However, this increase 
is more than offset by the reduction in SO2 from mobile 
source emissions. The principal point sources on Maui are the Kahului 
Power Plant and the Maalaea Power Plant, neither of which are BART-
eligible. Maalea is downwind of the Class I area and its SO2 
emissions are not expected to impact visibility at Haleakala. 
Prevailing winds should also transport emissions from Kahului away from 
Haleakala. However, CAlPUFF modeling indicates that this facility has a 
visibility impact of 0.667 deciviews at Haleakala.\50\ While this 
modeling is based on conservative assumptions that are unlikely to 
occur during normal operations, we believe this level of modeled impact 
is sufficient to warrant further scrutiny of this source under the four 
reasonable progress factors.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \50\ Subject-to-Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART) 
Modeling for the State of Hawaii, Application of the CALPUFF 
Modeling System, March 3, 2010, Alpine Geophysics, LLC. This modeled 
impact is higher than the BART modeling for this source due to 
inclusion of additional non-BART-eligible units.

                                      Table 18--Maui Point Source Emissions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                               2005                            2018
                                                 ---------------------------------------------------------------
                                                        NOX             SO2             NOX             SO2
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MECO--Kahului Power Plant.......................             536           3,198             542           3,233
Maalaea Generating Station......................           3,255             913           3,291             923
HC & S--Puunene Sugar Mill......................             617             424             760             469
Ameron Hawaii Camp 10 Quarry....................               4               0               4               0
Maui Pineapple Co...............................              80              24
                                                 ---------------------------------------------------------------
    Total.......................................           4,492           4,559           4,597           4,625
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The first RP factor is costs of compliance. HECO (the electric 
utility) performed a detailed analysis of the cost of reducing 
SO2 emissions at the Hill as part of the BART analysis for 
that source.\51\ EPA reviewed and largely concurred with the results of 
that analysis. As with Hill, the most cost-effective control measure at 
Kahului would be to reduce the amount of sulfur in the fuel. However, 
even that method is expensive. The lowest cost method for reducing 
SO2 emissions at these plants is to switch to a fuel with no 
more than 1% sulfur by weight. To estimate the total cost of the 
converting this plant to 1% fuel oil and estimate the impact of those 
costs on electric rates, EPA developed a base case scenario derived 
from 2009 operating conditions.\52\ This analysis, which is summarized 
in Table 19 below and further explained in our FIP TSD, indicates that 
the cost effectiveness of this control is approximately $4,200 per ton 
of SO2 reduced.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \51\ BART Five-Factor Analysis Prepared for Hawaiian Electric 
Light Company, October 2010, Trinity Consultants.
    \52\ 2009 was selected because it was consistent with the year 
used in the BART analysis for Hill. It is also a year where the 
actual capacity factors for the electric plants on the Big Island 
were comparable to the 4-year average.

[[Page 31710]]

    Table 19--Costs and Benefits From Switching to 1% Sulfur Fuel Oil
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Kahului
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Baseline Weight % S.....................................            1.57
Baseline Fuel Consumption [gal/yr]......................      19,790,111
Baseline Emissions [tons SO2/yr]........................           2,489
New Fuel Weight % S.....................................            1.00
Cost Differential [$/gal]...............................           0.190
Controlled Emissions [tons SO2/yr]......................           1,586
Annual Costs [$/yr].....................................       3,760,121
Annual Emission Reductions [tons SO2/yr]................             904
Cost Efficiency [$/ton SO2 reduced].....................           4,160
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The second RP factor is the time necessary for compliance. The 
switch to a lower sulfur residual fuel oil than is currently being 
burned does not require any capital investment or construction, but it 
does require time to get new fuel contracts into place with the new 
sulfur limits. It may take time for the fuel suppliers to secure the 
new fuel and it will take time for the current fuel inventory to be 
consumed.
    The third and fourth RP factors are the energy and non-air quality 
impacts of control measures and the remaining useful life of the 
source. EPA considered these factors in the context of the Hawaii Clean 
Energy Initiative that sets the goal of 70% clean energy by 2030. The 
Initiative includes the 2009 Clean Energy Omnibus Bill (ACT 155 (09), 
HB 1464, signed June 25, 2009). This statute calls for 30% reduction in 
energy use via efficiency and increases the renewable portfolio 
standard to 40% by 2030. EPA contracted with UNC and ICF to project the 
2018 emissions of power plants considering the requirements of the 
Clean Energy Omnibus Bill. These projections are compared to the 
current 2018 projections based on the most recent Integrated Resource 
Plan (IRP) for Hawaii electric utilities. This IRP predates the 2009 
bill and so does not account for its requirements. Table 20 compares 
the baseline emission projections for 2018, derived from the current 
IRP and the projections that take into account the goals of the Clean 
Energy Bill.

                   Table 20--Range of 2018 Emissions Projections for Key Power Plants on Maui
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                   2018 SO2 Emissions       2018 SO2 Emissions
                                                               -------------------------------------------------
                                                                          IRP               Clean Energy Bill
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kahului Power Plant...........................................                    2,822                        0
Maalaea Generating Station....................................                      923                      591
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The projections based on the goals of the Clean Energy Bill assume that 
the energy conservation and renewable energy goals will be met in a 
more or less even fashion year to year. So, by 2018, most of these 
projects will be in place. Under this scenario, Kahului will cease 
operations by 2018 and Maalaea will operate at a significantly lower 
capacity factor and/or burn biofuels that contain much less sulfur than 
their current fuel.
c. Conclusion of Reasonable Progress Analysis for SO2 
Emissions on Maui
    Based on the foregoing analysis for the four RP factors, we propose 
to determine that it is not reasonable to require additional 
SO2 controls for point sources on Maui in this planning 
period. In addition, as mentioned above, electric utility rates in 
Hawaii are over three times the national average. Furthermore, mobile 
source SO2 emissions are projected to decrease significantly 
on Maui, mostly due to the ECA. The net result is that overall 
SO2 emissions are projected to decrease on Maui by nearly 
8%. EPA proposes to find that this is a reasonable reduction for this 
planning period. Therefore, based on our consideration of the four RP 
factors, EPA proposes to determine that this level of emissions 
reduction is reasonable for this planning period.
5. Four Factor Analysis for SO2 Emissions on the Big Island 
(Hawaii)
    Unlike on Maui, EPA projects that, without additional controls, 
SO2 emissions on the Big Island will increase by 3.9% 
between 2005 and 2018. As noted above, SO2 is the key 
anthropogenic visibility-impairing pollutant at both of Hawaii's Class 
I areas. Therefore, we propose to determine that additional 
SO2 control measures are needed on the Big Island in order 
to ensure reasonable progress toward the national goal of no 
anthropogenic visibility impairment.
a. Mobile Source SO2 Emissions on the Big Island (Hawaii)
    Mobile source emissions of SO2 on the Big Island are 
projected to drop 91% under existing regulations, driven primarily by 
reductions in marine emissions due to the ECA. This control measure is 
in addition to the benefits of fleet turnover as described above in the 
discussion NOX. Given the existing benefits from the ECA and 
the fleet turnover benefits and taking into account the four reasonable 
progress factors, EPA proposes to determine that no additional 
SO2 reductions from mobile sources on the Big Island are 
needed in order to show reasonable progress during this first planning 
period.
b. Point Source SO2 Emissions on the Big Island (Hawaii)
    Point sources account for roughly 71% of the anthropogenic 
SO2 emissions on the Big Island. See Table 17 above. 
Virtually all of these emissions come from electric power plants. See 
Table 21 below. Therefore, EPA considered all of the power plants on 
the Big Island as candidates for additional controls.

[[Page 31711]]

                              Table 21--Hawaii (Big Island) Point Source Emissions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                               2005                            2018
                                                 ---------------------------------------------------------------
                                                        NOX             SO2             NOX             SO2
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HELCO--Kanoelehua Hill Generating Station.......             514           2,822             595           3,264
HELCO--Puna Power Plant.........................             241           1,345             279           1,556
HELCO--Keahole Power Plant......................             154             157             178             182
HELCO--Shipman Power Plant......................              38             222              28             166
Pepeekeo Power Plant/9-16-10 Hu Honua Bioenergy.  ..............  ..............             420              78
Tradewinds Forest Products, LLC.................  ..............  ..............             133              15
HELCO--Waimea Power Plant.......................              89               5             103               5
                                                 ---------------------------------------------------------------
    Total.......................................           1,036           4,551           1,736           5,266
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Because of their relatively low emission rates and distance from the 
Class I areas, EPA eliminated the Keahole and Waimea Power Plants and 
the Hu Honua Bioenergy facility. Due to their emission rates and 
positions close to and upwind of Hawaii Volcanoes NP, Hill, Shipman and 
Puna are the focus of the review. Alpine Geophysics estimated the 
visibility impact of these plants using the CalPUFF computer model. The 
results are summarized in Table 22.

   Table 22--Modeled Visibility Impacts of Key Power Plants on Hawaii
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                           Visibility Impact  [delta dv]
                                         -------------------------------
                                               HAVO            HALE
------------------------------------------------------------------------
HELCO--Kanoelehua Hill Generating                  2.334           0.808
 Station................................
HELCO--Puna Power Plant.................           1.594           0.358
HELCO--Shipman Power Plant..............           0.777           0.321
------------------------------------------------------------------------

These plants were also modeled with the same conservative assumptions 
as Kahului. The results for Hill and Puna indicate that these plants 
may be causing visibility impairment at Hawaii Volcanoes. In addition, 
the results indicate that Hill may be contributing to impairment at 
Haleakala and Shipman may be contributing to visibility impairment at 
Hawaii Volcanoes. Therefore, we further analyzed each of these plants 
in relation to the four RP factors.
    The first RP factor to consider is the cost of compliance. HECO 
(the electric utility) performed a detailed analysis of the cost of 
reducing SO2 emissions at Hill as part of the BART analysis 
for that source.\53\ EPA reviewed and largely concurred with the 
results of that analysis. As described previously, the most cost-
effective control measure is to reduce the amount of sulfur in the 
fuel. This is also true for Shipman and Puna. Table 23 provides the 
full cost/benefit calculation for the Big Island sources. Based on this 
analysis, EPA estimates that the cost effectiveness of this control is 
approximately $5,500 per ton of SO2 reduced for sources on 
the Big Island.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \53\ BART Five-Factor Analysis Prepared for Hawaiian Electric 
Light Company, October 2010, Trinity Consultants.

                        Table 23--Costs and Benefits from Switching to 1% Sulfur Fuel Oil
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                       Hill           Shipman          Puna
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Baseline Weight % S.............................................            1.57            1.57            1.57
Baseline Fuel Consumption [gal/yr]..............................      18,650,604       2,241,876       9,930,648
Baseline Emissions [tons SO2/yr]................................           2,344             282           1,249
New Fuel Weight % S.............................................            1.00            1.00            1.00
Cost Differential [$/gal].......................................           0.255           0.255           0.255
Controlled Emissions [tons SO2/yr]..............................            1493             180             796
Annual Costs [$/yr].............................................      $4,755,904        $571,678      $2,532,315
Annual Emission Reductions [tons SO2/yr]........................             851             102             454
Cost Efficiency [$/ton SO2 reduced].............................          $5,587          $5,583          $5,583
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
    Total Annual Cost...........................................       $7,859,89  ..............  ..............
    Total Annual Emissions Reduction............................           1,407  ..............  ..............
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In Table 23, most of the assumptions are the same as in Table 19, 
but the cost differential is a bit higher due to the extra transport 
costs. We added 0.065 $/gal to the estimate for a total of 0.255 $/gal. 
The 0.065 $/gal estimate is derived from the six-year (2006-2011) cost 
differential between residual fuel oil delivered to Maui and the same 
oil delivered to the Big Island.
    With these assumptions, EPA estimates an annual increase in fuel

[[Page 31712]]

costs of over $7.9 million/year. EPA contracted with the energy 
economics consulting firm Energy Strategies to estimate the impact of 
these increased fuel costs on electric rates.\54\ Based on its 
analysis, these increased costs would translate into a roughly 2% 
increase in retail electric rates on the Big Island. This impact is 
higher than just controlling Hill alone because applying the controls 
to all three sources of concern would result in higher fuel costs for 
the system. The benefit of this change would be a reduction in 
SO2 emissions of at least 1,400 tons per year.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \54\ Fuel Cost Screening Tool (r1 4-18-12), Energy Strategies 
Incorporated, April 18, 2012.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The second factor to consider is the time necessary for compliance. 
The considerations here are the same as for Maui.
    The third and fourth factors to consider are the energy and non-air 
quality impacts of control measures and the remaining useful life of 
the source. As part of our consideration of these two factors, EPA is 
taking into account the anticipated results of the Clean Energy Bill 
described above. Table 24 compares the emission projections for 2018 
based on the IRP and the projections that take into account the goals 
of the Clean Energy Bill.\55\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \55\ Clean Energy Bill estimates from Email from Juanita Haydel, 
ICF Corporation to Greg Nudd, U.S. EPA Region 9, April 4, 2012, with 
spreadsheet titled: ``Hawaii Emissions Values--Revised--040412--
FTC.xlsx''.

  Table 24--Range of 2018 Emissions Projections for Key Power Plants on
                             the Big Island
                             [Tons per year]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                             2018 SO2        2018 SO2
                                             emissions       emissions
                                         -------------------------------
                                                           Clean Energy
                                                IRP            Bill
------------------------------------------------------------------------
HELCO--Kanoelehua Hill Generating                  3,264             765
 Station................................
HELCO--Puna Power Plant.................           1,566             365
HELCO--Shipman Power Plant..............             166               0
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Under the Clean Energy Bill scenario, Shipman is projected to cease 
operations by 2018 and Hill and Puna are projected to be operating at a 
significantly lower capacity factor and/or burning biofuels with a much 
lower sulfur content than their current fuel. However, as noted above, 
these projections are based on optimistic assumptions about 
implementation of the Clean Energy Bill. In addition, these 
requirements are not federally enforceable. Therefore, we cannot rely 
upon these projected reductions to demonstrate reasonable progress.
c. Conclusion of Reasonable Progress Analysis for SO2 
Emissions on the Big Island (Hawaii)
    In summary, without further control, emissions of SO2 on 
the Big Island are projected to increase by nearly 4% between 2005 and 
2018. Therefore, additional, federally enforceable SO2 
reductions are needed on the Big Island to ensure reasonable progress. 
EPA has identified the fuel oil-fired boilers at Hill, Shipman and Puna 
as appropriate sources for further control because they are upwind of 
the Hawaii Volcanoes NP, have high SO2 emissions and lack 
modern pollution controls. Based on our analysis of the four RP 
factors, EPA believes that the SO2 control measure for these 
sources should be structured so that it can be achieved through 
increased energy efficiency and increased reliance on renewable energy.
    Therefore, EPA is proposing to cap total emissions at the fuel oil-
fired boilers at Hill, Shipman and Puna at 3,550 tons of SO2 
per year, beginning in January 1, 2018. This cap was derived from EPA's 
analysis of the costs of switching these units to 1% sulfur fuel as 
shown in Table 23 and is equivalent to a reduction of 1,400 tons of 
SO2 per year from the total projected 2018 emissions from 
these units. EPA is structuring this control requirement to allow HECO 
to minimize costs. If HECO implements the Hawaii Clean Energy Bill on 
schedule, it should be able to meet this cap with no additional costs 
to the ratepayers. If the cap has to be met with a lower sulfur fuel 
oil, HECO should be able to meet this cap at a cost of roughly $7.9 
million/year. We are taking the other three factors into account by 
structuring the control requirement to be consistent with the State's 
goals for energy conservation and reduced dependence on fossil fuels. 
Once this control measure is in place, total SO2 emissions 
on Big Island will decrease by at least 17% in the first planning 
period. Considering the four factors as shown above, the EPA considers 
this reduction to constitute reasonable progress toward the goal of 
eliminating anthropogenic visibility impairment at the Class I areas.
d. Benefits of the Emission Control Area on Emissions from In Transit 
Marine Vessels
    In addition to reducing emissions from ships in and near ports, the 
ECA also significantly reduces emissions from ships traveling from 
port-to-port. The projected effect of the ECA on this category of 
marine emissions is shown in Table 25. EPA considered this as 
supplemental information when determining whether reasonable progress 
is being made with existing regulations.

            Table 25--Benefits of the ECA From In Transit Shipping Within 150 km of the Class I Areas
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                               2005                            2018
                  Class I area                   ---------------------------------------------------------------
                                                        NOX             SO2             NOX             SO2
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Haleakala.......................................           2,740           2,610           3,419             141
Hawaii Volcanoes................................             566             530             447              15
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 31713]]

6. Reasonable Progress Goals--2018 Visibility Projections
    As explained above, there is no modeling available for this 
planning period that can reliably predict the change in visibility due 
to changes in the emission inventory for all sources (shipping, mobile 
sources, point sources, etc.).\56\ In the absence of reliable 
visibility modeling for 2018, EPA is using the island-specific 
inventories as a surrogate for judging whether reasonable progress is 
being made.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \56\ As described above, there is acceptable modeling for point 
sources for the BART and the reasonable progress analysis for point 
sources.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In order to show how the future emission changes may affect the 
aerosol levels in each of the Class 1 areas, EPA estimated the effect 
that the changes in the island-specific inventories for NOX 
and SO2 will have on the levels of nitrate and sulfate for 
each of the Class 1 areas. The details of this analysis are set forth 
in the TSD.
    At Hawaii Volcanoes NP, the projected visibility for 2018 is 
slightly worse without the proposed FIP control measures. With the 
proposed FIP control measure, there is a slight improvement in 
visibility conditions compared to the year 2005 for both the 20% best 
and 20% worst days. At Haleakala NP, there is a slight improvement in 
visibility conditions compared to the year 2005 for both the 20% best 
and 20% worst days.
7. Visibility Improvement Compared to URP and Number of Years to Reach 
Natural Conditions
    The amount of improvement needed to achieve the URP for 2018 at 
Haleakala NP is 1.38 delta deciview. Based on the projections of 
visibility, discussed above, the amount of improvement by 2018 would be 
0.29 delta deciview. This would result in a 2018 level of visibility of 
13.0 deciview at Haleakala.
    The amount of improvement needed to achieve the URP for 2018 for 
Hawaii NP is 2.73 delta deciview. Based on the projections of 
visibility, discussed above, the amount of improvement by 2018 would be 
0.18 delta deciview. This would result in a 2018 level of visibility of 
18.7 deciview.
    Therefore, the URP will not be met at either NP. Based on our 
analysis of the four reasonable progress factors above, we propose to 
determine that the rate of progress for the implementation plan to 
attain natural conditions by 2064 is not reasonable and that our 
progress goals are reasonable.
    EPA has calculated the number of years it would take to reach 
natural conditions, based on the rate of visibility improvement in this 
first planning period. Because the baseline conditions include the 
effect of the emissions from the volcano, the calculation of number of 
years to reach natural conditions by control of anthropogenic emission 
does not represent a realistic scenario in this case. Based on the 
projected rate of improvement at Haleakala of 0.021 deciview per year, 
natural conditions would be met in 280 years. Based upon the projected 
rate of improvement at Hawaii Volcanoes NP, natural conditions would be 
met in over 800 years. If the volcano stops erupting, natural 
conditions would be met significantly sooner.

G. Long-Term Strategy

1. Interstate Consultation Requirement
    Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.308(d)(3)(i), if a state has emissions that 
are reasonably anticipated to contribute to visibility impairment in 
any mandatory Class I Federal area located in another state or states, 
each of the relevant states must consult with the other(s). Hawaii lies 
approximately 2,390 miles southwest of the Continental United States 
and has been included by EPA in the regional haze program, ``because of 
the potential for emissions from sources within [its] borders to 
contribute to regional haze impairment in Class I areas also located 
within [Hawaii's] own jurisdiction,'' 64 FR at 35720 (emphasis added). 
Therefore, we propose to determine that emissions from Hawaii are not 
reasonably anticipated to contribute to visibility impairment in any 
mandatory Class I Federal area located in another state or states. We 
also propose to determine that no emissions from any other state are 
reasonably anticipated to contribute to visibility impairment in either 
of Hawaii's mandatory Class I Federal areas.
    The Regional Haze Rule also requires any state that has 
participated in a regional planning process, to ``ensure it has 
included all measures needed to achieve its apportionment of emission 
reduction obligations agreed upon through that process'' and to 
demonstrate the technical basis for this apportionment. 40 CFR 
51.308(d)(3)(ii) and (iii). As noted above, both EPA and the state of 
Hawaii participated in the WRAP. The WRAP did not identify any 
obligation for emission reductions on the part of Hawaii. Therefore, we 
propose to determine that no additional emissions reductions are 
necessary in Hawaii to meet the progress goal for any mandatory Class I 
Federal area outside of Hawaii.
2. Identification of Anthropogenic Sources of Visibility Impairment
    Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.308(d)(3)(iv), States are required to 
identify all anthropogenic sources of visibility impairment considered 
in developing the long-term strategy, including major and minor 
stationary sources, mobile sources, and area sources. As explained in 
section III.C above, we have considered each of these categories in 
developing our long-term strategy.
3. Other Long Term-Strategy Requirements
    The RHR requires that a state consider the following factors in 
developing an LTS: (a) Emission reductions due to ongoing air pollution 
control programs, including measures to address RAVI; (b) measures to 
mitigate the impacts of construction activities; (c) emissions 
limitations and schedules for compliance to achieve the RPG; (d) source 
retirement and replacement schedules; (e) smoke management techniques 
for agricultural and forestry management purposes including plans as 
currently exist within the state for these purposes; (f) enforceability 
of emissions limitations and control measures; and (g) the anticipated 
net effect on visibility due to projected changes in point, area, and 
mobile source emissions over the period addressed by the LTS. 40 CFR 
51.308(d)(3)(v). We address each of the factors below.\57\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \57\ Our analysis of these factors relies in part on work 
performed by our contractors, UNC and ICF, which is summarized in a 
document entitled, ``Technical Analysis for Arizona and Hawaii 
Regional Haze FIPs: Task 17: Information and Analysis to Support 
Hawaii's Long-Term Strategy'' (April 13, 2012) (hereinafter ``Hawaii 
LTS Report''). The Hawaii LTS Report is available in the docket for 
this action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

a. Emissions Reductions Due to Ongoing Air Pollution Programs
    Our LTS incorporates emission reductions due to a number of ongoing 
air pollution control programs.
i. Prevention of Significant Deterioration Rules
    One of the primary regulatory tools for addressing visibility 
impairment from industrial sources under the Act is the Prevention of 
Significant Deterioration (PSD) program. The PSD requirements apply to 
new major sources and major sources making a major modification in 
attainment areas.\58\ Among other things, the PSD

[[Page 31714]]

permit program is designed to protect air quality and visibility in 
Class 1 Areas by requiring best available control technology (BACT) and 
involving the public in permit decisions. EPA has promulgated a PSD FIP 
for Hawaii to address the CAA's PSD requirements. See 40 CFR 52.632(b) 
(``PSD FIP''). DOH has been delegated authority to implement this FIP 
since 1983. The FIP provides procedures, including requirements for 
input from the relevant FLM, for considering potential visibility 
impacts to Class I areas from new major stationary source or major 
modifications of existing major stationary sources. See 40 CFR 
52.21(p)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \58\ Nonattainment New Source Review (NSR) requirements apply to 
new major sources and major sources making major modifications in 
nonattainment areas. Hawaii has no nonattainment areas at this time 
and therefore the nonattainment NSR requirements are not relevant.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

ii. Reasonably Attributable Visibility Impairment Rules
    EPA has promulgated a FIP for Hawaii, which incorporates the 
provisions of 40 CFR 52.26, 52.27, 52.28, 52.29, to address RAVI in 
Hawaii. See 40 CFR 52.633. There have been no certifications of RAVI in 
the Hawaii Class I areas, nor are any Hawaii sources affected by the 
RAVI provisions at this time.
iii. On-going Implementation of Federal Mobile Source Rules
    Mobile source NOX and SO2 emissions are 
expected to decrease in Hawaii from 2002 to 2018, due to several 
existing federal mobile source regulations. As shown in Table 26, these 
rules will result in significant reductions in NOX and 
SO2 emissions from both on road and non-road mobile sources.

                 Table 26--Statewide Inventory of NOX and SO2 Emissions From On-Road and Non-Road Mobile Sources: 2005, 2008 and 2018 59
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                       2005                            2008                            2018
                     Source category                     -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                NOX             SO2             NOX             SO2             NOX             SO2
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On-Road Mobile Sources..................................          20,642             321          14,239              97           5,058              72
Non-Road Mobile Sources.................................           4,750             534           4,573              78           3,090               7
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

iv. North American Emissions Control Area
    An additional air pollution control program that will limit 
emissions of visibility-impairing pollutants in Hawaii is the North 
American Emissions Control Area (NA ECA). The United States Government, 
together with Canada and France, established the NA ECA under the 
auspices of Annex VI of the International Convention for the Prevention 
of Pollution from Ships (MARPOL Annex VI), a treaty developed by the 
International Maritime Organization. This ECA will require use of lower 
sulfur fuels in ships operating within 200 nautical miles of the 
majority of the U.S. and Canadian coastline, including the U.S. Gulf 
Coast and Hawaii, beginning in August 2012. The ECA is expected to 
significantly reduce both NOX and SO2 emissions 
from marine sources in Hawaii during the first implementation period. 
These reductions are reflected in Table 27.

                           Table 27--Statewide Inventory of NOX and SO2 Emissions From Marine Sources: 2005, 2008 and 2018 60
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                       2005                            2008                            2018
                     Source category                     -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                NOX             SO2             NOX             SO2             NOX             SO2
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In and Near Port Marine.................................           2,572           2,201          12,432           2,638           2,097             117
Underway Marine (X, SOX, 
particulate matter (PM10 and PM2.5 from engine 
exhaust and as fugitive dust from roadways and material handling) and 
primary organic aerosols.\61\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \59\ Excerpted from FIP TSD Table III-3.
    \60\ Excerpted from FIP TSD Table III-3.
    \61\ See Hawaii LTS Report, Sec. Sec.  2.2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Hawaii DOH regulates emissions of air pollutants, including 
construction emissions, under Chapter 11-60.1 of Hawaii Administrative 
Rules (HAR). These rules generally prohibit the emission of any 
``regulated air pollutant'' without the written approval of DOH. HAR 
Sec.  11-60.1-2.\62\ ``Regulated air pollutant'' is defined to include, 
among other things, NOX, VOCs and ``any air pollutant for 
which a national or state ambient air quality standard has been 
promulgated'' (e.g., SO2, PM10 and 
PM2.5). HAR Sec.  11-60.1-2.\63\ Fugitive dust emissions are 
specifically regulated under HAR Sec.  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 Sec.  11-60.1-1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \62\ The Hawaii SIP currently contains an earlier version of 
this rule, HAR Sec.  11-60-17. See 40 CFR 52.620(c) (2011). EPA has 
proposed to replace the old rule with HAR Sec.  11-60.1-2. See 77 FR 
25111 (April 27, 2012).
    \63\ The Hawaii SIP currently contains an earlier version of 
this rule, HAR Sec.  11-60-1. See 40 CFR 52.620(c) (2011). EPA has 
proposed to replace the old rule with HAR Sec.  11-60.1-1. See 77 FR 
25111 (April 27, 2012).
    \64\ The Hawaii SIP contains an earlier version of this rule, 
HAR Sec.  11-60-26. See 40 CFR 52.620(c) (2011).

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 31715]]

    In addition to fugitive dust, another potential source of 
visibility-impairing pollutants from construction activities is fuel-
burning construction equipment and vehicles. Emissions from 
construction equipment are reflected in the non-road mobile source 
category of the Hawaii Emissions Inventory,\65\ while emissions from 
trucks and other construction-related vehicles are reflected in the on-
road category.\66\ As described in section III.C above, statewide 
NOX and SO2 from the on-road and non-road mobile 
source categories are expected to decrease significantly between 2005 
and 2018, as new federal mobile source regulations are implemented. In 
addition to the federal mobile source regulations, emissions from motor 
vehicles are regulated under HAR Sec.  11-60.1-34.\67\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \65\ ``Final Emission Inventory Report: Data Population for Air 
System for Hawaii Emissions Data (AirSHED)'', Environ International 
Corporation, (April 12, 2010) (hereinafter ``Environ Inventory'') 
Appendix D, Figures 2, 3 and 4.
    \66\ ``Technical Analysis for Hawaii's Regional Haze FIP 
Report--Task 16: On-Road Mobile Emissions Inventory'', ICF 
International, March 23, 2012.
    \67\ The Hawaii SIP currently contains an earlier version of 
this rule, HAR Sec.  11-60-25. See 40 CFR 52.620(c) (2011). EPA has 
proposed to replace the old rule with HAR Sec.  11-60.1-34. See 77 
FR 25111 (April 27, 2012).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Given the significant decreases in this category expected from 
ongoing pollution control measures, we propose that no additional 
measures are needed to mitigate the impact of construction activities 
during this time period. However, as noted above, coarse mass 
contributes to 9% of the visibility degradation on the 20% worst days 
and 17% on the 20% best days at Haleakala. It is unknown how much of 
this coarse mass derives from fugitive dust emissions. Therefore, for 
the next planning period, a detailed study of the source contribution 
to coarse mass and soil measured at the Haleakala Crater Class 1 area 
monitors is needed. Depending on the results of this study, further 
regulation of fugitive dust emissions, including construction 
emissions, may be appropriate.
c. Emission Limitations and Schedules for Compliance
    As explained above, we are proposing to place a 3,550 tpy cap on 
SO2 emissions from the residual fuel-fired boilers at Hill, 
Shipman and Puna on the Big Island, which represents a 1,400 tpy 
reduction from the 2018 projected emission from these units. We propose 
that this emission limit, together with the ongoing requirements 
described above, will be sufficient to meet the RPGs for the first 
implementation period.
d. Sources Retirement and Replacement Schedules
    In order to assess potential source retirements and replacements 
during the first implementation period, our contractor, ICF, reviewed 
the last set of Integrated Resource Plans (IRPs) for HECO and its 
subsidiaries. In its IRP, HECO indicated that Wauai Units 3 and 4 would 
be placed into emergency reserve or retired in 2011 and 2014, 
respectively. HELCO, MECO, and Kauai Island Utility Cooperative (KIUC) 
had no plans to retire any of their units in their last IRP.\68\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \68\ Technical Analysis for Arizona and Hawaii Regional Haze 
FIPs: Task 17: Information and Analysis to Support Hawaii's Long-
Term Strategy University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, ICF 
International, April 13, 2012.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    It should be noted, however, that existing state legislation and 
voluntary measures by the Hawaiian utilities are likely to result in 
further reductions in oil-fired electricity generating units in Hawaii 
by 2018. In particular, Hawaii's current Renewable Portfolio Standard 
(RPS) requires each electric utility company in the state to achieve 
the following percentages of renewable electrical energy sales:
     10% of its net electricity sales by December 31, 2010;
     15% of its net electricity sales by December 31, 2015;
     25% of its net electricity sales by December 31, 2020; and
     40% of its net electricity sales by December 31, 2030.\69\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \69\ HRS Sec.  269-92.

Although the Hawaii RPS is a state law and is not federally 
enforceable, it is likely to result in significant reductions in 
SO2 and NOX emissions over the next twenty years, 
as existing fossil fuel-fired generation is replaced with renewables.
    In addition, as part of the Hawaii Clean Energy Initiative, the 
State of Hawaii, Division of Consumer Advocacy of the Department of 
Commerce & Consumer Affairs, and the Hawaiian Electric Companies have 
entered into an ``Energy Agreement'', which includes an extensive list 
of renewable energy commitments and related provisions.\70\ Among other 
things, the Agreement provides that, ``the utilities will `retire' the 
older and less efficient fossil-fired firm capacity generating units by 
removing such units from normal daily operating service as 
expeditiously as possible.'' \71\ Although this is not a federally 
enforceable requirement, we expect that the output of the utilities' 
existing oil-fired units will decrease over the period of the first 
implementation period and will be replaced by renewable energy 
generation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \70\ ``Energy Agreement Among the State of Hawaii, Division of 
Consumer Advocacy of the Department of Commerce & Consumer Affairs, 
and Hawaiian Electric Companies.'' (Oct. 2008) (hereinafter ``Energy 
Agreement'').
    \71\ Section 11 of the Energy Agreement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

e. Agricultural and Forestry Smoke Management Techniques
    Hawaii's agricultural fire emissions come from crop waste 
combustion of over roughly 30,000 acres of sugarcane, which is 
cultivated mostly on Maui. Burn permits are required under HAR Sec.  
11-60.1-53 \72\ and records must be kept in accordance with such 
permits under HAR Sec.  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 Sec.  11-60.1-55.\74\ Given our focus on SO2 as 
the dominant visibility-impairing pollutant for this implementation 
period, and our finding that there is no evidence of agricultural 
burning contributing to haze at Class I areas,\75\ we propose to 
determine that no further controls on agricultural burning or forest 
fires are reasonable at this time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \72\ The Hawaii SIP currently contains an earlier version of 
this rule, HAR Sec.  11-60-19. See 40 CFR 52.620(c) (2011). EPA has 
proposed to replace the old rule with HAR Sec.  11-60.1-53. See 77 
FR 25111 (April 27, 2012).
    \73\ The Hawaii SIP currently contains an earlier version of 
this rule, HAR Sec.  11-60-22. See 40 CFR 52.620(c) (2011). EPA has 
proposed to replace the old rule with HAR Sec.  11-60.1-56. See 77 
FR 25111 (April 27, 2012).
    \74\ The Hawaii SIP contains an earlier version of this rule, 
HAR Sec.  11-60-21. See 40 CFR 52.620(c) (2011).
    \75\ See FIP TSD Sections II.A, II.B and III.B.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

f. Enforceability of Control Measures
    40 CFR 51.308(d)(3)(v)(F) of the Regional Haze Rule requires us to 
ensure that emission limitations and control measures used to meet RPGs 
are enforceable. As described above, we are proposing that cumulative 
SO2 emissions from the residual fuel fired boilers at the 
Hill, Shipman and Puna plants be limited to 3,550 tons per year (tpy) 
(rolling 12-month average). We propose that enforceability of this 
control measure will be ensured through the following measurement, 
recordkeeping and reporting requirements:
    The sources will be required to measure the sulfur content (weight 
percent), heat value (million British thermal units per gallon (MMBtu/
gal)) and total gallons of fuel burned at each of the affected units. 
Based on these

[[Page 31716]]

parameters, the SO2 emissions for each unit will be 
calculated on a monthly basis, then the rolling 12-month average of the 
total emissions for all units will be calculated. All of this 
information must be recorded and these records must be maintained for 
at least five years. In addition, all of this information must be 
reported to Hawaii DOH and EPA on an annual basis. Finally, any 
exceedance of the 3,550 tpy cumulative emission limit for these 5 units 
must be reported to Hawaii DOH and EPA within 30 days.
g. Anticipated Net Effect on Visibility Due to Projected Changes in 
Point, Area, and Mobile Source Emissions over the next 10 years
    As described above, total statewide anthropogenic emissions of 
NOX and VOC are projected to decrease between 2005 and 2018. 
However, anthropogenic SO2 emissions are expected to 
increase between 2005 and 2018, largely due to increased emissions from 
point sources.
    Our analysis of the monitoring data indicates that visibility 
impacts of SO2 emissions are of greater concern in Hawaii's 
Class I areas than the impacts of either NOX or VOC. The 
increase in anthropogenic SO2 emissions indicates that some 
additional pollution reductions are needed to ensure reasonable 
progress toward the goal of eliminating anthropogenic visibility 
impairment in Hawaii's mandatory class I areas. Our proposal to achieve 
these reductions is explained in section III.F.5 of this notice.

H. Coordination of RAVI and Regional Haze Requirements

    Our visibility regulations direct states to coordinate their RAVI 
LTS and monitoring provisions with those for regional haze, as 
explained in section IV.G, above. Under our RAVI regulations, the RAVI 
portion of a state SIP must address any integral vistas identified by 
the FLMs pursuant to 40 CFR 51.304. See 40 CFR 51.302. An integral 
vista is defined in 40 CFR 51.301 as a ``view perceived from within the 
mandatory Class I federal area of a specific landmark or panorama 
located outside the boundary of the mandatory Class I federal area.'' 
Visibility in any mandatory Class I Federal area includes any integral 
vista associated with that area. The FLMs did not identify any integral 
vistas in Hawaii. In addition, there have been no certifications of 
RAVI in the Hawaii Class I areas, nor are any Hawaii sources affected 
by the RAVI provisions.
    Because Hawaii has not submitted a SIP to address RAVI, EPA 
previously promulgated a FIP for Hawaii, which incorporates the 
provisions of 40 CFR 52.26, 52.27, 52.28, 52.29 to address RAVI. We 
propose to find that the Regional Haze FIP appropriately supplements 
and augments EPA's FIP for RAVI visibility provisions by updating the 
monitoring and LTS provisions to address regional haze. We discuss the 
relevant monitoring provisions further below.

I. Monitoring Strategy

    40 CFR 51.308(d)(4) requires that the FIP contain a monitoring 
strategy for measuring, characterizing, and reporting regional haze 
visibility impairment that is representative of all mandatory Class I 
Federal areas within the state. This monitoring strategy must be 
coordinated with the monitoring strategy required in 40 CFR 51.305 for 
RAVI. As 40 CFR 51.308(d)(4) notes, compliance with this requirement 
may be met through participation in the IMPROVE network. 40 CFR 
51.308(d)(4)(i) further requires the establishment of any additional 
monitoring sites or equipment needed to assess whether RPGs to address 
regional haze for all mandatory Class I Federal areas within the state 
are being achieved. Consistent with EPA's monitoring regulations for 
RAVI and regional haze, EPA will rely on the IMPROVE network for 
compliance purposes, in addition to any RAVI monitoring that may be 
needed in the future. Further information on monitoring methods and 
monitor locations can be found in the docket.76 77 The most 
recent report also can be found in the docket.\78\ Therefore, we 
propose to find that we have satisfied the requirements of 40 CFR 
51.308(d)(4) enumerated in this paragraph.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \76\ ``Visibility Monitoring Guidance,'' EPA-454/R-99-003, June 
1999, http://www.epa.gov/ttn/amtic/files/ambient/visible/r-99-003.pdf.
    \77\ ``Guidance for Tracking Progress Under the Regional Haze 
Rule,'' EPA-454/B-03-004, September 2003, available at http://www.epa.gov/ttncaaa1/t1/memoranda/rh_tpurhr_gd.pdf. Figure 1-2 
shows the monitoring network on a map, while Table A-2 lists Class I 
areas and corresponding monitors.
    \78\ ``Spatial and Seasonal Patterns and Temporal Variability of 
Haze and its Constituents in the United States,'' Report V, ISSN 
0737-5352-87, June 2011.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Currently there are two IMPROVE monitoring sites operating in or 
near the Haleakala NP. The Haleakala (HALE1) IMPROVE monitoring site is 
located outside of the Haleakala NP near the Maui Central Valley, at an 
elevation of 1153 meters. The HALE1 IMPROVE monitoring site began 
operation at end of 2000, and will end operation in May, 2012. The 
Haleakala Crater (HACR1) IMPROVE monitoring site is at the park's 
Western boundary, at an elevation of 2158 meters. The HACR1 IMPROVE 
monitoring site began operation in 2007. In this proposal, EPA is 
proposing to use monitoring data from the HALE1 monitoring site as a 
basis for establishing baseline visibility, because the HACR1 site was 
not yet in operation for the base year time period of 2000-2004. Future 
regional haze planning efforts need to be based on data collected at 
the HACR1 site.
    Hawaii DOH has prepared two reports comparing the two IMPROVE 
monitoring sites at Haleakala NP,\79\ including a detailed comparison 
of organic and elemental carbon data at the two sites.\80\ The reports 
find that the most significant difference between data measured at the 
two sites appears to be that the HALE1 site has higher levels of 
organic and elemental carbon. The levels of the other species are 
generally lower at the HACR1 IMPROVE monitoring site than at the HALE1 
monitoring site. The reports conclude that, based on the available 
data, the HACR1 IMPROVE monitoring site is more representative of 
visibility conditions within the Haleakala NP than the HALE1 IMPROVE 
monitoring site.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \79\ Comparison of Haleakala NP HALE1 and HACR1 IMPROVE 
Monitoring Site 2007-2008 Data Sets, March 30, 2012, State of 
Hawaii, Department of Health, Clean Air Branch.
    \80\ Review of VIEWS2.0 2009-2010 Haleakala National Park 
Organic and Elemental Carbon Data, March 30, 2012, State of Hawaii, 
Department of Health, Clean Air Branch.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

J. Federal Land Manager Consultation and Coordination

    Under section 169A(d) of the Clean Air Act, we are required to 
consult with the appropriate FLM(s) before holding a public hearing on 
the Hawaii Regional Haze FIP. We must also include a summary of the 
FLMs' conclusions and recommendations in this notice. Both EPA and 
Hawaii DOH have consulted informally with the FLMs throughout the 
development of the Hawaii Regional Haze FIP. Most recently, we 
consulted with the FLMs by phone on March 26 and April 5, 2012.
    In addition, 40 CFR 51.308(i)(4) specifies the regional haze FIP 
must provide procedures for continuing consultation with the FLMs on 
the implementation of the visibility protection program required by 40 
CFR subpart P, including development and review of implementation plan 
revisions and 5-year progress reports, and on the implementation of 
other programs having the potential to contribute to impairment of 
visibility in mandatory Class I Federal areas. We intend to continue to 
consult with the FLMs

[[Page 31717]]

regarding all aspects of the visibility protection program and we 
encourage Hawaii to do the same.

IV. Proposed Action

    EPA is proposing to establish an emissions cap of 3,550 tons of 
SO2 per year from the fuel oil-fired boilers at Hill, 
Shipman and Puna, beginning in January 1, 2018. This represents a 
reduction of 1,400 tons per year from the total projected 2018 annual 
emissions of SO2 from these facilities. We propose to 
determine that this control measure, in conjunction with SO2 
and NOX emissions control requirements that are already in 
place, will ensure that reasonable progress is made during this first 
planning period toward the national goal of no anthropogenic visibility 
impairment by 2064 at Hawaii's two Class I areas.

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review

    This proposed action is not a ``significant regulatory action'' 
under the terms of Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) 
and is therefore not subject to review under Executive Orders 12866 and 
13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011). The proposed Hawaii Regional Haze 
FIP requires implementation of emissions controls for SO2 on 
specific units at three sources. Since EPA is proposing direct emission 
controls on selected units at only three sources, the Hawaii Regional 
Haze FIP is not a rule of general applicability.

B. Paperwork Reduction Act

    This proposed action does not impose an information collection 
burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 
3501 et seq. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act, a ``collection of 
information'' is defined as a requirement for ``answers to * * * 
identical reporting or recordkeeping requirements imposed on ten or 
more persons. * * * '' 44 U.S.C. 3502(3)(A). Because the proposed FIP 
applies to just three facilities, the Paperwork Reduction Act does not 
apply. See 5 CFR 1320(c).
    Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources 
expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or 
provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time 
needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize 
technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and 
verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and 
disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to 
comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements; 
train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information; 
search data sources; complete and review the collection of information; 
and transmit or otherwise disclose the information.
    An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required 
to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a 
currently valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number. 
The OMB control numbers for our regulations in 40 CFR are listed in 40 
CFR part 9.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) generally requires an agency 
to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to 
notice and comment rulemaking requirements under the Administrative 
Procedure Act or any other statute unless the agency certifies that the 
rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial 
number of small entities. Small entities include small businesses, 
small organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions.
    For purposes of assessing the impacts of today's proposed rule on 
small entities, small entity is defined as: (1) A small business as 
defined by the Small Business Administration's (SBA) regulations at 13 
CFR 121.201; (2) a small governmental jurisdiction that is a government 
of a city, county, town, school district or special district with a 
population of less than 50,000; and (3) a small organization that is 
any not-for-profit enterprise which is independently owned and operated 
and is not dominant in its field.
    After considering the economic impacts of this proposed action on 
small entities, I certify that this proposed action will not have a 
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. 
The three sources in question are electric generating plants that are 
owned by the Hawaii Electric Light Company, Inc. (HELCO), which is an 
electric utility subsidiary of HECO. Pursuant to 13 CFR 121.201, 
footnote 1, an electric utility firm is small if, including its 
affiliates, it is primarily engaged in the generation, transmission, 
and/or distribution of electric energy for sale and its total electric 
output for the preceding fiscal year did not exceed 4 million megawatt 
hours (MWH). In the fiscal year ended December 31, 2011, HELCO 
generated or purchased a total of 1,186.6 MWH.\81\ Therefore, it is not 
a small business.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \81\ Hawaiian Electric Industries, Inc. and Hawaiian Electric 
Company, Inc., Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2011 
``Generation Statistics.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)

    This rule does not contain a Federal mandate that may result in 
expenditures that exceed the inflation-adjusted UMRA threshold of $100 
million by State, local, or Tribal governments or the private sector in 
any 1 year. Thus, this rule is not subject to the requirements of 
sections 202 or 205 of UMRA.
    This rule is also not subject to the requirements of section 203 of 
UMRA because it contains no regulatory requirements that might 
significantly or uniquely affect small governments.

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

    The proposed Hawaii Regional Haze FIP does not have federalism 
implications. This action will not have substantial direct effects on 
the States, on the relationship between the national government and the 
States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the 
various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132. In 
this action, EPA is fulfilling its statutory duty under CAA Section 
110(c) to promulgate a Regional Haze FIP following its finding that 
Hawaii had failed to submit a regional haze SIP. Thus, Executive Order 
13132 does not apply to this action. In the spirit of Executive Order 
13132, and consistent with EPA policy to promote communications between 
EPA and State and local governments, EPA specifically solicits comment 
on this proposed rule from State and local officials.

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian 
Tribal Governments

    This proposed rule does not have tribal implications, as specified 
in Executive Order 13175. It will not have substantial direct effects 
on tribal governments. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to 
this rule.

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental 
Health Risks and Safety Risks

    EPA interprets EO 13045 as applying only to those regulatory 
actions that concern health or safety risks, such that the analysis 
required under section 5-501 of the EO has the potential to influence 
the regulation. This action is not subject to EO 13045 because it

[[Page 31718]]

implements specific standards established by Congress in statutes. 
However, to the extent this proposed rule will limit emissions of 
SO2, the rule will have a beneficial effect on children's 
health by reducing air pollution.

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That 
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use

    This action is not subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355 
(May 22, 2001)), because it is not a significant regulatory action 
under Executive Order 12866.

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

    Section 12 of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act 
(NTTAA) of 1995 requires Federal agencies to evaluate existing 
technical standards when developing a new regulation. To comply with 
NTTAA, EPA must consider and use ``voluntary consensus standards'' 
(VCS) if available and applicable when developing programs and policies 
unless doing so would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise 
impractical. EPA believes that VCS are inapplicable to this action. 
Today's action does not require the public to perform activities 
conducive to the use of VCS.

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental 
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations

    Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994), establishes 
federal executive policy on environmental justice. Its main provision 
directs federal agencies, to the greatest extent practicable and 
permitted by law, to make environmental justice part of their mission 
by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high 
and adverse human health or environmental effects of their programs, 
policies, and activities on minority populations and low-income 
populations in the United States.
    We have determined that this proposed rule, if finalized, will not 
have disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental 
effects on minority or low-income populations because it increases the 
level of environmental protection for all affected populations without 
having any disproportionately high and adverse human health or 
environmental effects on any population, including any minority or low-
income population.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Air pollution control, Environmental protection, Intergovernmental 
relations, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping 
requirements, Sulfur oxides.

    Dated: May 14, 2012.
Jared Blumenfeld,
Regional Administrator, Region 9.

    For the reasons stated in the preamble, part 52 of title 40, 
chapter I, of the Code of Federal Regulations is proposed to be amended 
as follows:

PART 52--[AMENDED]

    1. The authority citation for Part 52 continues to read as follows:

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

Subpart M--Hawaii

    2. Section 52.633 is amended by adding paragraph (d) to read as 
follows:

Sec.  52.633  Visibility protection.

* * * * *
    (d) Regional Haze Plan Provisions.
    (1) Applicability. This paragraph (d) applies to the following 
electric generating units (EGUs) and boilers: Kanoelehua Hill 
Generating Station, Hill 5 and Hill 6; Puna Power Plant, Boiler 1; 
Shipman Power Plant, Boiler S-3 and Boiler S-4.
    (2) Definitions. Terms not defined below shall have the meaning 
given to them in the Clean Air Act or EPA's regulations implementing 
the Clean Air Act. For purposes of this paragraph (d):
    SO2 means sulfur dioxide.
    Owner/operator means any person who owns, leases, operates, 
controls, or supervises an EGU or boiler identified in paragraph 
(d)(1).
    Unit means any of the EGUs or boilers identified in paragraph 
(d)(1).
    (3) Emissions cap. The EGUs identified in paragraph (d)(1) shall 
not emit or cause to be emitted SO2 in excess of a total of 
3,550 tons per year, calculated as the sum of total SO2 
emissions for all five units over a rolling 12-month period.
    (4) Compliance date. Compliance with the emissions cap and other 
requirements of this section is required at all times on and after 
January 1, 2018.
    (5) Monitoring, recordkeeping and reporting requirements.
    (i) All records, including support information, required by this 
paragraph (5) shall be maintained for at least five (5) years from the 
date of the measurement, test or report. These records shall be in a 
permanent form suitable for inspection and made available to EPA, the 
Hawaii Department of Health or their representatives upon request.
    (ii) The owners and operators of the EGUs identified in paragraph 
(d)(1) shall maintain records of fuel deliveries identifying the 
delivery dates and the type and amount of fuel received. The fuel to be 
fired in the boilers shall be sampled and tested in accordance with the 
most current American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) methods.
    (iii) The owners and operators of the EGUs identified in paragraph 
(d)(1) shall analyze a representative sample of each batch of fuel 
received for its sulfur content and heat value following ASTM D4057. 
The samples shall be analyzed for the total sulfur content of the fuel 
using ASTM D129, or alternatively D1266, D1552, D2622, D4294, or D5453.
    (iv) The owners and operators of the EGUs identified in paragraph 
(d)(1) shall calculate on a monthly basis the SO2 emissions 
for each unit for the preceding month based on the sulfur content, heat 
value and total gallons of fuel burned fired.
    (v) The owners and operators of the EGUs identified in paragraph 
(d)(1) shall calculate on a monthly basis the total emissions for all 
units for the preceding twelve (12) months.
    (vi) The owners and operators of the EGUs identified in paragraph 
(1) shall notify the Hawaii Department of Health and EPA Region 9 of 
any exceedance of the emission cap in paragraph (d)(3) within thirty 
(30) days of such exceedance.
    (vii) Within sixty (60) days following the end of each calendar 
year, the owners and operators of the EGUs identified in paragraph 
(d)(1) shall report to the Hawaii Department of Health and EPA Region 9 
the total tons of SO2 emitted from all units for the 
preceding calendar year by month and the corresponding rolling 12-month 
total emissions for all units.
    (viii) Any document (including reports) required to be submitted by 
this rule shall be certified as being true, accurate, and complete by a 
responsible official and shall be mailed to the following addresses:

Clean Air Branch, Environmental Management Division, State of Hawaii 
Department of Health, P.O. Box 3378, Honolulu, HI 96801-3378,

and

Director of Enforcement Division, U.S. EPA Region IX, 75 Hawthorne 
Street, San Francisco, CA 94105.

[FR Doc. 2012-12415 Filed 5-25-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
```