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-

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.

    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.

                              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

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

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

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 (<30nm).................................           3,052           1,418             562             282           1,867              68
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

b. Measures to Mitigate the Impacts of Construction Activities
    Potential sources of emissions from construction activities include
exhaust from fuel-burning equipment on the site; vehicles working on
the site, delivering materials, and hauling away excavate; employee
vehicles; and fugitive dust from exposed earth, material stockpiles,
and vehicles on roadways, especially unpaved site accesses. These
activities can result in emissions of NOX, SOX,
particulate 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).

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

    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

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

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

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