
[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 122 (Monday, June 25, 2012)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 37842-37859]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-15463]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R02-OAR-2012-0457, FRL-9691-4]


Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; 
United States Virgin Islands; Regional Haze Federal Implementation Plan

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to promulgate a Federal Implementation Plan 
(the Plan) to address regional haze in the Territory of the United 
States Virgin Islands. EPA proposes to determine that the Plan meets 
the requirements of the Clean Air Act and EPA's rules concerning 
reasonable progress towards the national goal of preventing any future 
and remedying any existing man-made impairment of visibility in 
mandatory Class I areas (also referred to as the ``regional haze 
program''). The proposed Plan protects and improves visibility levels 
in the Virgin Islands Class I area, namely the Virgin Islands National 
Park on the island of St. John. The Plan for the Virgin Islands will 
address Reasonable Progress toward improving visibility and evaluation 
of Best Available Retrofit Control Technology. The reader is referred 
to the Regional Haze Virgin Islands Federal Implementation Plan found 
in the Docket for this action, which contains a complete description of 
all of the elements to address regional haze. EPA is taking comments on 
this proposal and plans to follow with a final action.

DATES: Comments: Comments must be received on or before August 24, 
2012.
    Public Hearing: If you wish to request a hearing and present 
testimony, you should notify Mr. Geoffrey Garrison on or before July 6, 
2012, and indicate the nature of the issues you wish to provide oral 
testimony during the hearing. Mr. Garrison's contact information is 
found in FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.
    Oral testimony will be limited to 5 minutes per person. The hearing 
will be strictly limited to the subject matter of this proposal, the 
scope of which is discussed below. EPA will not respond to comments 
during the public hearing. EPA will not be providing equipment for 
commenters to show overhead slides or make computerized slide 
presentations. A verbatim transcript of the hearing and written 
statements will be made available for copying during normal working 
hours at the address listed for inspection of documents, and also 
included in the Docket. Any member of the public may file a written 
statement by the close of the comment period. Written statements 
(duplicate copies preferred) should be submitted to Docket Number EPA-
R2-OAR-2012-0457, at the address listed for submitting comments. Note 
that any written comments and supporting information submitted during 
the comment period will be considered with the same weight as any oral 
comments presented at the public hearing. If no requests for a public 
hearing are received by close of business on July 6, 2012, a hearing 
will not be held; please contact Mr. Garrison to find out if the 
hearing will actually be held or will be cancelled for lack of any 
request to speak.

ADDRESSES: Public Hearing: A public hearing, if requested, will be held 
at Virgin Islands Department of Planning and Natural Resources, St. 
Thomas Office, Cyril E. King Airport, Terminal Building, St. Thomas, VI 
00802, on July 17, 2012, beginning at 6:00 p.m.
    Comments: Submit your comments, identified by Docket Number EPA-
R02-OAR-2012-0457, by one of the following methods:
     www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for 
submitting comments.
     Email: Werner.Raymond@epa.gov.
     Fax: 212-637-3901.
     Mail: Raymond Werner, Chief, Air Programs Branch, 
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 2 Office, 290 Broadway, 25th 
Floor, New York, New York 10007-1866.
     Hand Delivery: Raymond Werner, Chief, Air Programs Branch, 
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 2 Office, 290 Broadway, 25th 
Floor, New York, New York 10007-1866. Such deliveries are only accepted 
during the Regional Office's normal hours of operation. The Regional 
Office's official hours of business are Monday through Friday, 8:30 to 
4:30 excluding Federal holidays. Hand Delivery of comments will also be 
accepted by Mr. Jim Casey, Virgin Islands Coordinator, Environmental 
Protection Agency, Region 2 Virgin Islands Field Office, Tunick 
Building, Suite 102, 1336 Beltjen Road, St. Thomas, VI 00801, 340-714-
2333.

    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket Number EPA-R02-OAR-
2012-0457. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included 
in the public docket without change and may be made available online at 
www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided, 
unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential 
Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is 
restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to 
be CBI or otherwise protected through www.regulations.gov or email. The 
www.regulations.gov Web site is an ``anonymous access'' system, which 
means EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you 
provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an email comment 
directly to EPA without going through www.regulations.gov your email 
address will be automatically captured and included as part of the 
comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on the 
Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you 
include your name and other contact information in the body of your 
comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA

[[Page 37843]]

cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot 
contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your 
comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of special characters or 
any form of encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses. For 
additional information about EPA's public docket visit the EPA Docket 
Center homepage at http://www.epa.gov/air/docket.html.
    Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the http://www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some 
information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information 
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such 
as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy. 
Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically 
in http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at:
     Environmental Protection Agency, Region 2 Office, Air 
Programs Branch, 290 Broadway, 25th Floor, New York, New York 10007-
1866.
     Environmental Protection Agency, Region 2 Virgin Islands 
Field Office, Tunick Building, Suite 102, 1336 Beltjen Road, St. 
Thomas, VI 00801.
     Environmental Protection Agency, Region 2, St. Croix 
Public Affairs Office, 4200 Estate St. John 4237, 
Christiansted, VI 00820.

EPA requests, if at all possible, that you contact the individual 
listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to view the hard 
copy of the docket. You may view the hard copy of the docket Monday 
through Friday, 8 a.m. to 4 p.m., excluding Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
     Robert F. Kelly, State Implementation Planning Section, 
Air Programs Branch, EPA Region 2, 290 Broadway, New York, New York 
10007-1866. The telephone number is (212) 637-4249. Mr. Kelly can also 
be reached via electronic mail at kelly.bob@epa.gov.
     Geoffrey M. Garrison, Community Involvement Coordinator, 
Public Affairs Division, U.S. EPA Region 2, St. Croix, U.S. Virgin 
Islands, BB: 340-201-5328, Email: garrison.geoffrey@epa.gov.
     Jim Casey, Virgin Islands Coordinator, Environmental 
Protection Agency, Region 2 Virgin Islands Field Office, Tunick 
Building, Suite 102, 1336 Beltjen Road, St. Thomas, VI 00801, 340-714-
2333, Email: casey.jim@epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, wherever 
``Agency,'' ``we,'' ``us,'' or ``our'' is used, we mean the EPA. In 
most cases in this document, where we use the term ``state'' when 
discussing requirements or recommendations under the Clean Air Act or 
Agency guidance, this includes the Territory of the Virgin Islands.

Table of Contents

I. What action is EPA proposing?
II. What is the background for EPA's proposed action?
III. What are the requirements for Regional Haze SIPs?
    A. The Act and the Regional Haze Rule (RHR)
    B. Determination of Baseline, Natural, and Current Visibility 
Conditions
    C. Determination of Reasonable Progress Goals (RPGs)
    D. Best Available Retrofit Control Technology (BART)
    E. Long-Term Strategy (LTS)
    F. Coordinating Regional Haze and Reasonably Attributable 
Visibility Impairment (RAVI)
    G. Monitoring Strategy and Other Implementation Plan 
Requirements
    H. Consultation With States and Federal Land Managers (FLMs)
IV. What is the proposed implementation plan to address regional 
haze in the Virgin Islands?
    A. Affected Class I Areas
    1. Relative Contributions of Pollutants to Visibility Impairment
    B. Long-Term Strategy/Strategies (LTS)
    1. Emissions Inventory for 2018 With Federal and Territory 
Control Requirements
    2. Reasonable Progress Goals
    i. Identification of Pollutants for Reasonable Progress
    ii. Determining Reasonable Progress Through Island-Specific 
Emissions Inventories
    iii. Reasonable Progress Goals--2018 Visibility Projections
    iv. Visibility Improvement Compared to URP
    v. Interstate Consultation Requirement
    vi. Identification of Anthropogenic Sources of Visibility 
Impairment
    vii. Emissions Reductions Due to Ongoing Air Pollution Programs
    3. BART
    i. BART-Eligible Sources in the Virgin Islands
    ii. Sources Subject to BART
    iii. BART Evaluations for Sources Identified as Subject to BART 
by EPA
    C. Consultation With Federal Land Managers
    D. Periodic SIP Revisions and Five-Year Progress Reports
    E. Coordinating Regional Haze and Reasonably Attributable 
Visibility Impairment (RAVI) LTS
    F. Agricultural and Forestry Smoke Management Techniques
    G. Monitoring Strategy and Other Implementation Plan 
Requirements
V. What action is EPA proposing to take?
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
    A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review
    B. Paperwork Reduction Act
    C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
    D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)
    E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
    F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With 
Indian Tribal Governments
    G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From 
Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks
    H. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That 
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
    I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
    J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address 
Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income 
Populations

I. What action is EPA proposing?

    EPA is proposing a plan to address regional haze in the Virgin 
Islands under the Clean Air Act (CAA or the Act) sections 301(a) and 
110(k)(3). EPA proposes a Federal Implementation Plan (FIP) which 
includes measures that will reduce emissions that contribute to 
regional haze in the Virgin Islands and make progress toward the 
Reasonable Progress Goal (RPG) for 2018, as determined by EPA. RPGs are 
interim visibility goals towards meeting the Act's national visibility 
goal of no man-made contribution to visibility reduction. In addition, 
EPA proposes Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART) control 
determinations for sources in the Virgin Islands that may be subject to 
BART. This proposed action and the accompanying FIP documents that are 
available in the Docket explain the basis for EPA's proposed actions on 
the Virgin Islands Regional Haze FIP.

EPA's Authority To Promulgate a FIP

    The Act requires each state to develop plans to meet various air 
quality requirements, including protection of visibility. (CAA sections 
110(a), 169A, and 169B). The plans developed by a state or Territory 
are referred to as State Implementation Plans or SIPs. A state must 
submit its SIPs and SIP revisions to us for approval. Once approved, a 
SIP is federally enforceable, that is enforceable by EPA and citizens 
under the Act. If a state fails to make a required SIP submittal or if 
we find that a state's required submittal is incomplete or 
unapprovable, then we must promulgate a FIP to fill this regulatory 
gap. (CAA section 110(c)(1)).
    EPA made a finding of failure to submit on January 15, 2009 (74 FR 
2392), determining that the U.S. Virgin Islands failed to submit a SIP 
that addressed any of the required regional haze SIP elements of 40 CFR 
51.308.

[[Page 37844]]

Under section 110(c) of the Act, whenever we find that a state has 
failed to make a required submission we are required to promulgate a 
FIP. Specifically, section 110(c) provides:
    (1) The Administrator shall promulgate a Federal implementation 
plan at any time within 2 years after the Administrator--
    (A) finds that a state has failed to make a required submission or 
finds that the plan or plan revision submitted by the state does not 
satisfy the minimum criteria established under [section 110(k)(1)(A)], 
or
    (B) disapproves a state implementation plan submission in whole or 
in part, unless the state corrects the deficiency, and the 
Administrator approves the plan or plan revision, before the 
Administrator promulgates such Federal implementation plan.
    Section 302(y) defines the term ``Federal implementation plan'' in 
pertinent part, as:

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

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

II. What is the background for EPA's proposed action?

    Regional haze is visibility impairment that is produced by many 
sources and activities which are located across a broad geographic area 
and emit fine particles and their precursors (e.g., sulfur dioxide, 
nitrogen oxides, and in some cases, ammonia and volatile organic 
compounds). Fine particle precursors react in the atmosphere to form 
fine particulate matter (PM2.5) (e.g., sulfates, nitrates, 
organic carbon, elemental carbon, and soil dust), which also impairs 
visibility by scattering and absorbing light. Visibility impairment 
reduces the clarity, color, and visible distance that one can see. 
Visibility impairment caused by air pollution occurs virtually all the 
time at most national parks and wilderness areas, many of which are 
also referred to as Federal Class I areas. (CAA section 162(a)).
    In the 1977 Amendments to the CAA, Congress initiated a program for 
protecting visibility in the nation's national parks and wilderness 
areas. Section 169A(a)(1) of the Act establishes as a national goal the 
``prevention of any future, and the remedying of any existing, 
impairment of visibility in mandatory Class I Federal areas which 
impairment results from manmade air pollution.'' In 1990 Congress added 
section 169B to the Act to address regional haze issues. On July 1, 
1999, EPA promulgated the Regional Haze Rule (RHR) (64 FR 35714, July 
1, 1999). The requirement to submit a Regional Haze SIP applies to all 
50 states, the District of Columbia and the Virgin Islands. 40 CFR 
51.308(b) of the RHR required states to submit the first implementation 
plan addressing regional haze visibility impairment no later than 
December 17, 2007.
    On January 15, 2009, EPA issued a finding that the Virgin Islands 
had failed to submit the Regional Haze SIP (74 FR 2392, January 15, 
2009). EPA's January 15, 2009 finding established a two-year deadline 
of January 15, 2011 for EPA to either approve a Regional Haze SIP for 
the Virgin Islands, or adopt a FIP. This proposed action is intended to 
address the January 15, 2009 finding. EPA continues to work with the 
Virgin Islands Government to develop a State Implementation Plan for 
Regional Haze.
    Because the pollutants that lead to regional haze can originate 
from sources located across broad geographic areas, EPA has encouraged 
the states and tribes across the United States to address visibility 
impairment from a regional perspective. Five regional planning 
organizations (RPOs) were developed to address regional haze and 
related issues. The Virgin Islands National Park is sufficiently far 
from the continental United States, therefore there was no need for the 
Virgin Islands government to participate in any of these RPOs.

III. What are the requirements for regional haze SIPs?

    The following is a basic explanation of the RHR. See 40 CFR 51.308 
for a complete listing of the regulations under which this FIP was 
developed.

A. The Act and the Regional Haze Rule (RHR)

    Regional haze SIPs must assure reasonable progress towards the 
national goal of achieving natural visibility conditions in Class I 
areas. Section 169A of the Act and EPA's implementing regulations 
require states to establish long-term strategies for making reasonable 
progress toward meeting this goal. Implementation plans must also give 
specific attention to certain stationary sources that were in existence 
on August 7, 1977, but were not in operation before August 7, 1962, and 
require these sources, where appropriate, to install BART controls for 
the purpose of eliminating or reducing visibility impairment. The 
specific regional haze SIP requirements are discussed in further detail 
below.

B. Determination of Baseline, Natural, and Current Visibility 
Conditions

    The RHR establishes the deciview or ``dv'' as the principal metric 
for measuring visibility. This visibility metric expresses uniform 
changes in haziness in terms of common increments across the entire 
range of visibility conditions, from pristine to extremely hazy 
conditions. Visibility is determined by measuring the visual range, 
which is the greatest distance, in kilometers or miles, at which a dark 
object can be viewed against the sky. The dv is calculated from 
visibility measurements. Each dv change is an equal incremental change 
in visibility perceived by the human eye. For this reason, EPA believes 
it is a useful measure for tracking progress in improving visibility. 
Most people can detect a change in visibility at one dv. The preamble 
to the RHR provides additional details about the deciview (64 FR 35725, 
July 1, 1999).
    The dv is used in expressing RPGs (which are interim visibility 
goals towards meeting the national visibility goal), defining baseline, 
current, and natural conditions, and tracking changes in visibility. 
The regional haze SIPs must contain measures that ensure ``reasonable 
progress'' toward the national goal of preventing and remedying 
visibility impairment in Class I areas caused by manmade air pollution 
by reducing anthropogenic emissions that cause regional haze. The 
national goal is a return to natural conditions, i.e., manmade sources 
of air pollution would no longer impair visibility in Class I areas.
    To track changes in visibility over time at each of the 156 Class I 
areas covered by the visibility program (40 CFR 81.401-437) and as part 
of the process for determining reasonable progress, the RHR requires 
states to calculate the degree of existing visibility impairment at 
each Class I area at the time of each regional haze SIP submittal and 
review progress midway through each 10-year planning period. To do 
this, the RHR requires states to determine the degree of impairment (in 
dv) for the average of the 20 percent least impaired (``best'') and 20 
percent most impaired (``worst'') visibility days over a specified time 
period at each of their Class I areas. In addition, the RHR requires 
states to develop an estimate of

[[Page 37845]]

natural visibility conditions for the purposes of comparing progress 
toward the national goal. Natural visibility is determined by 
estimating the natural concentrations of pollutants that cause 
visibility impairment and then calculating total light extinction based 
on those estimates. EPA has provided guidance to states regarding how 
to calculate baseline, natural and current visibility conditions.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Guidance for Estimating Natural Visibility conditions under 
the Regional Haze Rule, September 2003, (EPA-454/B-03-005 located at 
http://www.epa.gov/ttncaaa1/t1/memoranda/rh_envcurhr_gd.pdf), 
(hereinafter referred to as ``EPA's 2003 Natural Visibility 
Guidance''), and Guidance for Tracking Progress Under the Regional 
Haze Rule (EPA-454/B-03-004 September 2003 at http://www.epa.gov/ttncaaa1/t1/memoranda/rh_tpurhr_gd.pdf)), (hereinafter referred to 
as ``EPA's 2003 Tracking Progress Guidance'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For the initial regional haze SIPs that were due by December 17, 
2007, baseline visibility conditions were used as the starting points 
for assessing current visibility impairment. Baseline visibility 
conditions represent the degree of impairment for the 20 percent least 
impaired days and 20 percent most impaired days at the time the 
regional haze program was established. Using monitoring data for 2000 
through 2004, the RHR required states to calculate the average degree 
of visibility impairment for each Class I area, based on the average of 
annual values over the five year period. The comparison of initial 
baseline visibility conditions to natural visibility conditions 
indicates the amount of improvement necessary to attain natural 
visibility, while the future comparison of baseline conditions to the 
then current conditions will indicate the amount of progress made. In 
general, the 2000-2004 baseline period is considered the time from 
which improvement in visibility is measured.

C. Determination of Reasonable Progress Goals (RPGs)

    The submission of a series of regional haze SIPs from the states 
that establish RPGs for Class I areas for each (approximately) 10-year 
planning period is the vehicle for ensuring continuing progress towards 
achieving the natural visibility goal. The RHR does not mandate 
specific milestones or rates of progress, but instead calls for states 
to establish goals that provide for ``reasonable progress'' toward 
achieving natural (i.e., ``background'') visibility conditions. In 
setting RPGs, states must provide for an improvement in visibility for 
the most impaired days over the (approximately) 10-year period of the 
SIP, and ensure no degradation in visibility for the least impaired 
days over the same period.
    States, and in this case, the Virgin Islands government, have 
significant discretion in establishing RPGs, but are required to 
consider the following factors established in the Act and in EPA's RHR: 
(1) The costs of compliance; (2) the time necessary for compliance; (3) 
the energy and non-air quality environmental impacts of compliance; and 
(4) the remaining useful life of any potentially affected sources. 
States must demonstrate in their SIPs how these factors are considered 
when selecting the RPGs for the best and worst days for each applicable 
Class I area. (See 40 CFR 51.308(d)(1)(i)(A)). States have considerable 
flexibility in how they take these factors into consideration, as noted 
in our Reasonable Progress guidance.\2\ In setting the RPGs, states 
must also consider the rate of progress needed to reach natural 
visibility conditions by 2064 (referred to as the ``uniform rate of 
progress'' or the ``glidepath'') and the emission reduction measures 
needed to achieve that rate of progress over the 10-year period of the 
SIP. In setting RPGs, each state with one or more Class I areas 
(``Class I State'') must also consult with potentially ``contributing 
states,'' i.e., other nearby states with emission sources that may be 
affecting visibility impairment at the Class I State's areas. (40 CFR 
51.308(d)(1)(iv)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Guidance for Setting Reasonable Progress Goals under the 
Regional Haze Program, (``EPA's Reasonable Progress Guidance''), 
July 1, 2007, memorandum from William L. Wehrum, Acting Assistant 
Administrator for Air and Radiation, to EPA Regional Administrators, 
EPA Regions 1-10 (pp. 4-2, 5-1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

D. Best Available Retrofit Control Technology (BART)

    Section 169A of the Act directs states to evaluate the use of 
retrofit controls at certain larger, often uncontrolled, older 
stationary sources in order to address visibility impacts from these 
sources. Specifically, the Act requires states to revise their SIPs to 
contain such measures as may be necessary to make reasonable progress 
towards the natural visibility goal, including a requirement that 
certain categories of existing stationary sources \3\ built between 
1962 and 1977 procure, install, and operate the ``Best Available 
Retrofit Control Technology'' as determined by the state. (CAA 
169A(b)(2)(A)). States are directed to conduct BART determinations for 
such sources that may be anticipated to cause or contribute to any 
visibility impairment in a Class I area. Rather than requiring source-
specific BART controls, states also have the flexibility to adopt an 
emissions trading program or other alternative program as long as the 
alternative provides equal or greater reasonable progress towards 
improving visibility than BART.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The set of ``major stationary sources'' potentially subject 
to BART are listed in CAA section 169A(g)(7).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On July 6, 2005, EPA published the Guidelines for BART 
Determinations Under the Regional Haze Rule at 40 CFR part 51, Appendix 
Y (hereinafter referred to as the ``BART Guidelines'') to assist states 
in determining which of their sources should be subject to the BART 
requirements and in determining appropriate emission limits for each 
applicable source. The BART Guidelines require states to use the 
approach set forth in the BART Guidelines in making a BART 
applicability determination for a fossil fuel-fired electric generating 
plant with a total generating capacity in excess of 750 megawatts. The 
BART Guidelines encourage, but do not require states to follow the BART 
Guidelines in making BART determinations for other types of sources.
    The BART Guidelines recommend that states address all visibility 
impairing pollutants emitted by a source in the BART determination 
process. The most significant visibility impairing pollutants are 
sulfur dioxide (SO2), nitrogen oxides (NOX), and 
PM. The BART Guidelines direct states to use their best judgment in 
determining whether volatile organic compounds (VOCs), or ammonia 
(NH3) and ammonia compounds impair visibility in Class I 
areas.
    In their SIPs, states must identify potential BART sources, 
described as ``BART-eligible sources'' in the RHR, and document their 
BART control determination analyses. In making BART determinations, 
section 169A(g)(2) of the Act requires that states consider the 
following factors: (1) The costs of compliance, (2) the energy and non-
air quality environmental impacts of compliance, (3) any existing 
pollution control technology in use at the source, (4) the remaining 
useful life of the source, and (5) the degree of improvement in 
visibility which may reasonably be anticipated to result from the use 
of such technology. States are free to determine the weight and 
significance to be assigned to each factor. (70 FR 39170, July 6, 
2005).
    A regional haze SIP must include source-specific BART emission 
limits and compliance schedules for each source subject to BART. Once a 
state has made its BART determination, the BART controls must be 
installed and in operation as expeditiously as practicable, but no 
later than five years after the date of EPA approval of the

[[Page 37846]]

regional haze SIP, as required by the Act (section 169A(g)(4)) and by 
the RHR (40 CFR 51.308(e)(1)(iv)). In addition to what is required by 
the RHR, general SIP requirements mandate that the SIP must also 
include all regulatory requirements related to monitoring, 
recordkeeping, and reporting for the BART controls on the source. 
States have the flexibility to choose the type of control measures they 
will use to meet the requirements of BART.

E. Long-Term Strategy (LTS)

    Consistent with the requirement in section 169A(b) of the Act, that 
states include in their regional haze SIP a 10 to 15 year strategy for 
making reasonable progress, section 51.308(d)(3) of the RHR requires 
that states include a Long-Term Strategy (LTS) in their SIPs. The LTS 
is the compilation of all control measures a state will use to meet any 
applicable RPGs. The LTS must include ``enforceable emissions 
limitations, compliance schedules, and other measures as necessary to 
achieve the reasonable progress goals'' for all Class I areas within, 
or affected by emissions from, the state. (40 CFR 51.308(d)(3)).
    When a state's emissions are reasonably anticipated to cause or 
contribute to visibility impairment in a Class I area located in 
another state, the RHR requires the impacted state to coordinate with 
the contributing states in order to develop coordinated emissions 
management strategies. (40 CFR 51.308(d)(3)(i)). Since sources in the 
Virgin Islands do not affect visibility in any other states' Class I 
areas, this particular LTS requirement does not apply.
    States should consider all types of anthropogenic sources of 
visibility impairment in developing their LTS, including stationary, 
minor, mobile, and area sources. At a minimum, states must describe how 
each of the seven factors listed below is taken into account in 
developing their LTS: (1) Emission reductions due to ongoing air 
pollution control programs, including measures to address Reasonably 
Attributable Visibility Impairment (RAVI); (2) measures to mitigate the 
impacts of construction activities; (3) emissions limitations and 
schedules for compliance to achieve the RPG; (4) source retirement and 
replacement schedules; (5) smoke management techniques for agricultural 
and forestry management purposes including plans as currently exist 
within the state for these purposes; (6) enforceability of emissions 
limitations and control measures; (7) the anticipated net effect on 
visibility due to projected changes in point, area, and mobile source 
emissions over the period addressed by the LTS. (40 CFR 
51.308(d)(3)(v)).

F. Coordinating Regional Haze and Reasonably Attributable Visibility 
Impairment (RAVI)

    As part of the RHR, EPA revised 40 CFR 51.306(c) regarding the LTS 
for states with Class I areas to require that the RAVI plan must 
provide for a periodic review and SIP revision not less frequently than 
every three years until the date of submission of the state's first 
plan addressing regional haze visibility impairment, which was due 
December 17, 2007, in accordance with 51.308(b) and (c). On or before 
this date, the state must revise its plan to provide for review and 
revision of a coordinated LTS for addressing reasonably attributable 
and regional haze visibility impairment, and the state must submit the 
first such coordinated LTS with its first regional haze SIP revision. 
Future coordinated LTSs, and periodic progress reports evaluating 
progress towards RPGs, must be submitted consistent with the schedule 
for SIP submission and periodic progress reports set forth in 40 CFR 
51.308(f) and 51.308(g), respectively. The periodic reviews of a 
state's LTS must report on both regional haze and RAVI impairment and 
must be submitted to EPA as a SIP revision, in accordance with 40 CFR 
51.308.

G. Monitoring Strategy and Other Implementation Plan Requirements

    If a state has a Class I Federal Area in the state, the 
requirements in section 51.308(d)(4) of the RHR must be met. These 
requirements include a monitoring strategy for measuring, 
characterizing, and reporting of regional haze visibility impairment 
that is representative of all mandatory Class I Federal areas within 
the state and this strategy must be coordinated with the monitoring 
strategy required in section 51.305 for RAVI. Compliance with this 
requirement may be met through participation in the Interagency 
Monitoring of Protected Visual Environment (IMPROVE) network. The 
monitoring strategy is due with the first regional haze SIP, and it 
must be reviewed every five years. Note that section 51.308(d)(4) 
contains a list of additional items the implementation plan must 
address.

H. Consultation With States and Federal Land Managers (FLMs)

    The RHR requires that states consult with FLMs before adopting and 
submitting their SIPs. (40 CFR 51.308(i)). States must provide FLMs an 
opportunity for consultation, in person and at least 60 days prior to 
holding any public hearing on the SIP. This consultation must include 
the opportunity for the FLMs to discuss their assessment of impairment 
of visibility in any Class I area and to offer recommendations on the 
development of the RPGs and on the development and implementation of 
strategies to address visibility impairment. Further, a state must 
include in its SIP a description of how it addressed any comments 
provided by the FLMs. Finally, a SIP must provide procedures for 
continuing consultation between the state and FLMs regarding the 
state's visibility protection program, including development and review 
of SIP revisions, five-year progress reports, and the implementation of 
other programs having the potential to contribute to impairment of 
visibility in Class I areas.

IV. What is the proposed implementation plan to address regional haze 
in the Virgin Islands?

A. Affected Class I Areas

    In accordance with 40 CFR 51.308(d), we have indentified one Class 
I area in the Territory of the Virgin Islands: The Virgin Islands 
National Park, where the FLM--the National Park Service--has identified 
visual impairment as an important value that must be addressed in 
regional haze plans. Thus, the Virgin Islands, and in this case, EPA 
consulting with the Government of the Territory of the Virgin Islands, 
must develop a Regional Haze Plan that addresses the causes of 
visibility impairment in the Class I area, that describes the long-term 
emission strategy, the consultation processes, and other requirements 
in EPA's regional haze regulations. Because the Virgin Islands are home 
to a Class I area, we will address the following Regional Haze Plan 
elements: (a) Calculation of baseline and natural visibility 
conditions, (b) establishment of RPGs, (c) monitoring requirements, and 
(d) RAVI requirements as required by EPA's RHR. These elements will 
constitute a FIP, developed in consultation with the FLM and the 
involvement of the Virgin Islands Government and its environmental 
agency, the Virgin Islands Department of Planning and Natural Resources 
(VIDPNR).
1. Relative Contributions of Pollutants to Visibility Impairment
    An important step toward identifying reasonable progress measures 
is to identify the key pollutants contributing to visibility impairment 
at each Class I area. To understand the relative benefit

[[Page 37847]]

of further reducing emissions from different pollutants, EPA evaluated 
data from the IMPROVE air quality station, located in the Virgin 
Islands National Park near Cruz Bay, on the western end of the island 
of St. John. On the days with the worst visibility, the following table 
lists the particulate species that contribute to reduced visibility.

Table 1--Visibility Reduction From Particulates on the Worst 20% of Days
                                 in 2004
------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Coarse Particulates............  17.6 Mm-1                         36.4%
Sea Salt.......................  9.88 Mm-1                         20.5%
Sulfates.......................  9.29 Mm-1                         19.2%
Fine Soil......................  6.68 Mm-1                         13.8%
Nitrates.......................  2.59 Mm-1                          5.4%
Elemental Carbon...............  1.40 Mm-1                          2.9%
Organic Carbon.................  0.90 Mm-1                         1.9%
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Megameters-1 (Mm-1) are a unit of visibility impairment. Larger values
  are greater amounts of interference with visibility.

    The size of particulates from Saharan Dust range from 2 to 5 
microns, so Saharan Dust is a major contributor to both fine (less than 
2.5 microns) soil and coarse matter (greater than 2.5 microns). As 
shown in research studies and ongoing satellite data, Saharan Dust is 
transported in large quantities across the Atlantic Ocean and mixed in 
the surface air where it reduces visibility. This effect is most often 
seen, and recorded in particulate samples from the IMPROVE monitor, in 
the early summer months as tropical waves move from Africa across the 
Atlantic Ocean to the Caribbean Sea and beyond. Since fine soil in the 
air is often largely Saharan Dust, and increases in fine soil and 
coarse particulate are found during documented Sahara Dust events, it 
is likely that all or most of the fine soil and coarse particulate 
found on days with impaired visibility is a result of Saharan Dust.
    EPA commissioned a microinventory of emissions on St. John to 
determine if other sources, particularly local sources of fine or 
coarse dust, could be contributing to the large amount of fine soil and 
coarse particulate found on the IMPROVE filters and contributing to 
high impairment of visibility on St. John. The largest anthropogenic 
sources of particles found in the microinventory were dirt from the 
roadways and some dust from construction activities.
    Other potential sources of particulates that reduce visibility are 
combustion sources on the Virgin Islands, including the HOVENSA 
refinery on St. Croix, ships that serve St. John and miscellaneous 
combustion sources on St. John.
    Trajectory analysis conducted by EPA for days with the highest 
contributions to visibility impairment showed that fine soil and coarse 
dust, which are major contributors to Virgin Islands haze episodes, 
match with long range transport from Africa. Also, sulfates and 
nitrates, which were at lower concentrations than found in the 
continental United States, did not correspond to a group of particular 
sources on days with higher sulfate and nitrate concentrations. 
Combustion products are often found on days when the trajectories began 
in the distant continental United States up to two weeks earlier and 
when air patterns are looping though the Caribbean region in general. 
There was no obvious or consistent source for days high in combustion 
products.
    These results support the hypothesis that the major contributor to 
visibility impairment in the Virgin Islands National Park is Saharan 
Dust. Though on some days, sulfate is a significant contributor to 
visibility impairment (but still a small contributor compared to 
continental United States monitoring sites). The Docket contains the 
results of the modeling using trajectories and using photochemical 
dispersion models.

B. Long-Term Strategy/Strategies (LTS)

    As described above, the Long Term Strategy (LTS) is a compilation 
of control measures relied on to support the RPGs for the Virgin 
Islands National Park. The LTS for the Virgin Islands for the first 
implementation period will address the emissions reductions from 
Federal, territorial and local controls that take effect in the 
Territory from the baseline period starting in 2000 until 2018.
    EPA has reviewed potential strategies to improve visibility in the 
Virgin Islands and determined that the following strategies are 
reasonably available for application in the Virgin Islands: Reductions 
in sulfur in fuel from ferries and cruise ships, the Federal motor 
vehicle control program, and the consent decree for the HOVENSA 
refinery on St. Croix. In this action, EPA proposes these controls that 
we determined are likely to have the largest impacts currently on 
visibility at the Virgin Islands National Park. EPA estimated emissions 
reductions for 2018, based on all controls required under Federal and 
Territory regulations for the 2000-2018 period (including BART), and 
comparing projected visibility improvement with the uniform rate of 
progress for the Virgin Islands National Park Class I area. While the 
LTS for the Virgin Islands does not reach the reasonable progress goal 
for 2018 for the Virgin Islands, reducing other emissions is not 
feasible due to the Virgin Islands' unique circumstances and lack of 
major emission sources, as discussed further in this proposal.
1. Emissions Inventory for 2018 With Federal and Territory Control 
Requirements
    The emissions inventory used to determine the impact of sources in 
the Virgin Islands on visibility in the Class I area and the impact of 
planned emission controls is based on an emission inventory developed 
by an EPA contractor for the island of St. John, an inventory of 
significant sources in recent major source permit applications, 
additional information collected from the HOVENSA refinery on St. Croix 
and estimated emissions from other islands surrounding St. John, not 
included in the Territory of the United States Virgin Islands. The 
emissions reductions used to determine the effects on improving 
visibility in the National Park were based on projections of Federal 
and Territorial emission control programs, and other emission 
reductions specific to the Virgin Islands. EPA has determined that the 
major effect on visibility impairment in the Virgin Islands National 
Park is long-range transport of Saharan Dust.\4\ However, EPA has also 
determined that anthropogenic emissions of sulfates, nitrates, 
particulate carbon and other fine and coarse particulates are 
significant to PM mass and visibility impairment in the Virgin Islands 
National Park. The BART guidelines direct states to exercise judgment 
in deciding whether volatile organic

[[Page 37848]]

compounds and ammonia impair visibility in their Class I area(s) and 
whether their emissions can be addressed at this time. Total ammonia 
emissions in the region are extremely small and will not be addressed 
at this time. As for volatile organic compounds, they do not directly 
affect visibility, but can form particulate compounds in the presence 
of nitrogen oxides and radicals. The development of an emission 
inventory for volatile organic compounds emitted in the Virgin Islands 
is in its early stages, so EPA proposes to defer evaluation of the 
impact of these emissions to visibility reduction to the next round of 
visibility plans, covering 2018 to 2028.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Please refer to the Virgin Islands Regional Haze FIP 
contained in the Docket for this action, for additional information 
regarding Saharan Dust.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The island of St. John has an inventory that is complete for 
particulate matter, sulfur oxides and nitrogen oxides. The compiled 
inventory for other portions of the Virgin Islands included major point 
sources, since these would have the greatest influence on visibility on 
St. John. The proposed FIP has calculated changes in emissions from two 
source groups in the Virgin Islands: The HOVENSA refinery on St. Croix 
and marine vessels that travel to and from St. John. Reasonable 
controls are not available for other sources in the Virgin Islands 
because their impact on visibility in the National Park is very small 
or the prospective emission reductions are not cost effective based on 
the EPA's guidelines. While other sources, like motor vehicles, may 
have fewer emissions by 2018, the EPA has not calculated changes in 
emissions because the Islands' remote location makes national defaults 
for changes like vehicle turnover problematic for estimating future 
emissions in the Virgin Islands.
    For the proposed Haze FIP for the Virgin Islands, the official 
inventory will be the inventory for the island of St. John. Reductions 
by 2018 are from the use of lower sulfur fuels and nitrogen oxide 
controls on marine vessels as part of the Emissions Control Area (ECA) 
covering the portions of the United States in the Caribbean.

 Table 2--Sulfur Oxides Emissions From Point, Area and Mobile Sources on
                        St. John, Virgin Islands
                             [Tons per year]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                          2018  (With
           Source sector              Baseline 2002      measures  for
                                                              RPG)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point.............................              43.11              43.11
Area..............................               0.05               0.05
Non-Road Mobile...................              17.89              17.89
On-Road Mobile....................               1.61               1.61
Marine Vessels....................              94.06              14.11
                                   -------------------------------------
    Total.........................             156.72              76.77
------------------------------------------------------------------------


Table 3--Nitrogen Oxide Emissions From Point, Area and Mobile Sources on
                        St. John, Virgin Islands
                             [Tons per year]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                          2018  (With
           Source sector              Baseline 2002      measures  for
                                                              RPG)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point.............................             477.66             477.66
Area..............................               3.69               3.69
Non-Road Mobile...................               2.07               2.07
On-Road Mobile....................              25.03              25.03
Marine Vessels....................             318.23              63.65
                                   -------------------------------------
    Total.........................             826.68              572.1
------------------------------------------------------------------------


  Table 4--Direct Emissions of Particulate Matter From Point, Area and
               Mobile Sources on St. John, Virgin Islands
                             [Tons per year]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                          2018  (With
           Source sector              Baseline 2002      measures  for
                                                              RPG)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point.............................              34.33              34.33
Area..............................              38.32              38.32
Non-Road Mobile...................               1.93               1.93
On-Road Mobile....................               0.73               0.73
Marine Vessels....................               8.57               1.28
                                   -------------------------------------
    Total.........................              83.88              76.59
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Other emission changes in the FIP are from the effects of the 
consent decree with HOVENSA, whose impact is in the following table:

[[Page 37849]]



                                Table 5--Emissions From HOVENSA in Tons per Year
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                  Particulate
                                                           Sulfur oxides     Nitrogen oxides         matter
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HOVENSA Base 2002......................................             12,778             26,362              2,207
HOVENSA Future 2018....................................              9,318             21,331              2,192
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA used emission changes in Tables 2 through 5 with air quality 
models to project that 2018 visibility on the 20% worst days in the 
Virgin Islands National Park Class I area would be improved by 0.16 dv 
based on application of these controls. The uniform rate of progress 
goal is 1.48 dv for the period ending in 2018. As a result, these 
measures are likely to fall short of achieving the reasonable progress 
goal for 2018 in the Virgin Islands National Park. However, since a 
large portion of the reductions needed to meet the calculated 
background visibility in 2064 includes the impact of Saharan Dust and 
sea salt, which cannot be controlled under this program, the difficulty 
of achieving interim reasonable progress goals is apparent. EPA 
proposes that the reasonable measures will help improve visibility in 
the Virgin Islands National Park Class I area for the first round of 
the regional haze plan for the Virgin Islands.
2. Reasonable Progress Goals
    In determining if reasonable progress is being made, states, or EPA 
in the case of this FIP, are required to consider the following factors 
established in section 169A of the Act and in our Regional Haze Rule at 
40 CFR 51.308(d)(1)(i)(A): (1) The costs of compliance; (2) the time 
necessary for compliance; (3) the energy and non-air quality 
environmental impacts of compliance; and (4) the remaining useful life 
of any potentially affected sources (``the four RP factors''). Once 
these factors have been considered, the typical method for determining 
if a state is making reasonable progress is to use meteorological and 
air quality computer models to predict the visibility at Class I areas 
for the end of the planning period (2018). Those modeling results are 
then assessed to ensure that visibility is not degrading on the best 
days and that it is improving on the worst days at a reasonable rate, 
taking into consideration the relevant statutory factors, as well as 
the base period visibility conditions and the goal of zero 
anthropogenic visibility impairment by 2064.
    In the case of the Virgin Islands, though, a different method of 
determining reasonable progress is required. As explained in this 
proposal, the dominant cause of visibility impairment at the Virgin 
Islands' Class I area is international transport of Saharan Dust and 
volcanic ash from Montserrat. However, because the Saharan Dust and 
volcanic eruptions vary greatly from year to year with no discernible 
pattern, it is impossible to predict future emissions. As a result, 
there is little value in attempting to model visibility at the Class I 
area in 2018. The goal of this FIP therefore is to evaluate and remedy 
the causes of reduced visibility due to human sources.
i. Identification of Pollutants for Reasonable Progress
    EPA has evaluated the particulate pollutants (ammonium sulfate, 
ammonium nitrate, organic carbon (OC), elemental carbon (EC), fine 
soil, coarse mass (CM), and sea salt) that contribute to visibility 
impairment at the Virgin Islands Class I Federal area. The largest 
contributor to haze in the Virgin Islands is coarse mass where all 
particles are larger than 2.5 microns, which accounts for 36 percent of 
total interference with visibility on the twenty percent haziest days 
at the Virgin Islands National Park. The next largest contributor is 
sea salt at 20 percent; then sulfate at 19 percent; soils were the 
fourth largest contributor at 13 percent.
    There is nothing to be done about the portion of light extinction 
attributable to sea salt, as it is entirely from sea spray generated by 
wave action and winds. The days with the highest contributions to 
reduced visibility have the highest amounts of coarse particulates and 
fine soil, which indicate the presence of Saharan Dust. The sources of 
coarse mass are difficult to document because of emission inventory 
limitations associated with natural sources and uncertainty of fugitive 
(windblown) emissions. Because of the difficulty in attributing the 
sources of visibility impairment for this pollutant, EPA has determined 
that it is not reasonable in this planning period to recommend emission 
control measures for coarse mass. Similarly, because fine soil appears 
to be primarily attributable to international transport of Saharan 
Dust, EPA has determined that it is not reasonable in this planning 
period to recommend emission control measures for fine soil. 
Contributions of coarse mass and fine soil to visibility impairment, 
and their emissions sources, and potential control measures, should be 
addressed in future Regional Haze plan updates. Based on the above 
evaluation, EPA has determined that the first Regional Haze Plan RP 
evaluation should focus primarily on significant human sources of 
SO2 (sulfate precursor) and NOX (nitrate 
precursor).
ii. Determining Reasonable Progress Through Island-Specific Emissions 
Inventories
    Due to the difficulty of modeling to project visibility at the 
Virgin Islands Class I area in 2018, EPA is focusing its reasonable 
progress analysis on reducing anthropogenic emissions of visibility-
impairing pollution. The key anthropogenic pollutants of concern are 
SO2, PM, and NOX. We looked at trends in 
emissions of anthropogenic SO2 and NOX in order 
to judge if reasonable progress is being achieved.
    Rather than use a full statewide inventory to judge reasonable 
progress, we focused on the inventory for the island of St. John, where 
the Class I area is located, and other major sources located in the 
Virgin Islands. As discussed in this proposal, our analysis indicates 
that most emissions do not significantly impair visibility at the Class 
I areas due to the prevailing winds. Prevailing winds at St. John are 
from the east to the west. The Class I area is east and north of St. 
Thomas and St. Croix, respectively. Therefore, these trade winds tend 
to transport pollution from St. Thomas and St. Croix away from the 
Class I area. In addition, modeling performed to estimate the 
visibility impact of currently operating individual sources of 
pollution indicates that even very large sources in the Virgin Islands 
have relatively small visibility impacts on the Class I area.
    In developing the 2018 reasonable progress goal, and determining 
emission reductions that would help reduce emissions that impair 
visibility, EPA reviewed present and potential actions that would 
reduce visibility-impairing emissions between 2000 and 2018. Based on 
EPA's review, we are proposing to use the following reasonable measures 
to improve

[[Page 37850]]

visibility in the Virgin Islands National Park Class I area:
     U.S. Caribbean Emission Control Area for use of lower-
sulfur oil in ocean vessels and large ships.
     Emission reductions from the HOVENSA Consent Decree.
U.S. Caribbean Emission Control Area
    The United States Government, together with Canada and France, 
established the North America Emission Control Area (ECA) under the 
auspices of Annex VI of the International Convention for the Prevention 
of Pollution from Ships (MARPOL Annex VI), a treaty developed by the 
International Maritime Organization. The ECA was amended to include the 
designated waters around Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands. This 
ECA will require use of lower sulfur fuels in ships operating within 50 
nautical miles from the territorial sea baselines of the included 
islands. Beginning in 2015, fuel used by all vessels operating in these 
areas cannot exceed 0.1 percent fuel sulfur (1,000 ppm). This 
requirement is expected to reduce PM and SOX emissions by 
more than 85 percent. Beginning in 2016, new engines on vessels 
operating in these areas must use emission controls that achieve an 80 
percent reduction in NOX emissions. While these reductions 
are not enforceable as part of this FIP, EPA expects them to occur and 
they will be included in the reductions expected in the period through 
2018.
HOVENSA Consent Decree
    As discussed in greater detail in the section which discusses the 
BART determinations, HOVENSA, L.L.C. (HOVENSA) is a petroleum refinery 
located in St. Croix. In June 2011, EPA and HOVENSA entered into a 
Consent Decree (CD) to resolve alleged Clean Air Act violations at the 
refinery. The CD requires HOVENSA, among other things, to achieve 
emission limits and install new pollution controls pursuant to a 
schedule for compliance. The measures required by the CD are expected 
to reduce emissions of NOX by 5,031 tons per year (tpy) and 
SO2 by 3,460 tpy.
    In January 2012, HOVENSA announced the refinery would shut down 
operations and become an oil storage terminal. At this time, HOVENSA 
has retained its air permits and remains subject to the CD. Since 
HOVENSA has retained its permits, EPA proposes to determine the 
emission limitations, pollution controls, schedules for compliance, 
reporting, and recordkeeping provisions of the HOVENSA CD constitute a 
long term strategy and, therefore, can be used to address the 
reasonable progress provisions of 40 CFR 51.308(d)(1). While EPA's 
modeling analysis to estimate the visibility impact of currently 
operating individual sources of pollution indicates that even very 
large sources in the Virgin Islands have relatively small visibility 
impacts on the Class I area, HOVENSA's modeled impact of more than 1 
deciview indicates that HOVENSA impairs visibility in the Class I area 
on St. John, which leads us to determine that the HOVENSA CD contains 
existing reasonable measures that can assist in improving visibility at 
the Class I area. Should the existing federally enforceable HOVENSA CD 
be modified, EPA will reevaluate, and if necessary, revise the FIP 
after public notice and comment.
    In addition, EPA is proposing to require HOVENSA to notify EPA 60 
days in advance of startup and resumption of operation of refinery 
process units at the HOVENSA, St. Croix, Virgin Islands facility. EPA 
proposes that HOVENSA also provide a complete analysis of reasonable 
measures, consistent with EPA's Regional Haze requirements, if it 
resumes refinery operations. EPA will revise the FIP as necessary, 
after public notice and comment, in accordance with regional haze 
requirements including the ``reasonable progress'' provisions in 40 CFR 
51.308(d)(1).
    EPA proposes to determine that these measures are the reasonably 
available measures that can assist in improving visibility in the 
Virgin Islands National Park Class I area.
iii. Reasonable Progress Goals--2018 Visibility Projections
    As explained above, there is no modeling available for this 
planning period that can reliably predict the change in visibility by 
2018 due to changes in the emission inventory for all sources 
(shipping, mobile sources, point sources, etc.) in the Virgin 
Islands.\5\ In the absence of reliable visibility modeling for 2018, 
EPA is using the island-specific inventories and a post-control 
emission inventory to judge whether reasonable progress is being made.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ 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 the Virgin Islands National Park Class I area, EPA 
estimated the effect that the changes in the island-specific 
inventories for NOX, SO2 and PM will have on the 
visibility in the National Park. The details of this analysis are 
discussed in the FIP and the modeling is described in the contractor's 
report in the Docket.
    At the Virgin Islands National Park, the projected visibility for 
2018 post control case is slightly better due to the emission 
reductions anticipated by EPA. Visibility on the worst twenty percent 
days is improved by 0.16 dv and there is no change in visibility on the 
twenty percent best days.
iv. Visibility Improvement Compared to URP
    The amount of improvement needed to achieve the URP for 2018 at the 
Virgin Islands National Park is 1.46 dv. Based on the projections of 
visibility, discussed above, the amount of improvement by 2018 would be 
0.16 dv. Therefore, the URP will not be met in the Virgin Islands 
National Park. Based on our decision on the lack of other reasonable 
emission controls available for the Regional Haze FIP, we propose to 
determine that the amount of controls EPA is anticipating by 2018 is 
the reasonable progress that can be attained in the Virgin Islands.
v. Interstate Consultation Requirement
    Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.308(d)(3)(i), if a state has emissions that 
are reasonably anticipated to contribute to visibility impairment in 
any mandatory Class I Federal area located in another state or states, 
each of the relevant states must consult with the other(s). Since the 
Virgin Islands are about 1,200 miles from the next nearest Class I 
area--the Everglades in Florida--we propose to determine that emissions 
from the Virgin Islands are not reasonably anticipated to contribute to 
visibility impairment in any mandatory Class I Federal area located in 
another state or states. Because of the distance from the continental 
United States and the lack of impact modeled from a representative 
major source in Puerto Rico, we also propose to determine that no 
emissions from any other state are reasonably anticipated to contribute 
to visibility impairment in the Virgin Islands' mandatory Class I 
Federal area.
    The Regional Haze Rule also requires any state that has 
participated in a regional planning process, to ``ensure it has 
included all measures needed to achieve its apportionment of emission 
reduction obligations agreed upon through that process'' and to 
demonstrate the technical basis for this apportionment. 40 CFR 
51.308(d)(3)(ii) and (iii). Since the Virgin Islands was not included 
in any regional planning organizations, there is no obligation for

[[Page 37851]]

emission reductions on the part of the Virgin Islands. Therefore, we 
propose to determine that no additional emissions reductions are 
necessary in the Virgin Islands to meet the progress goal for any 
mandatory Class I Federal area outside of the Virgin Islands.
vi. Identification of Anthropogenic Sources of Visibility Impairment
    Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.308(d)(3)(iv), states are required to 
identify all anthropogenic sources of visibility impairment considered 
in developing the long-term strategy, including major and minor 
stationary sources, mobile sources, and area sources. As explained in 
section III.C above, we have considered each of these categories in 
developing our long-term strategy.
vii. Emissions Reductions Due to Ongoing Air Pollution Programs
    Our LTS incorporates emission reductions due to ongoing air 
pollution control programs.
Prevention of Significant Deterioration Rules
    One of the primary regulatory tools for addressing visibility 
impairment from industrial sources under the Act is the Prevention of 
Significant Deterioration (PSD) program. The PSD requirements apply to 
new major sources and major sources making a major modification in 
attainment areas. Among other things, the PSD permit program is 
designed to protect air quality and visibility in Class I Areas by 
requiring best available control technology and involving the public in 
permit decisions. EPA has promulgated a PSD FIP for the Virgin Islands 
to address the Act's PSD requirements (40 CFR 52.2779(b)). EPA does new 
source permitting for the Virgin Islands, according to the procedures 
in the PSD FIP, including implementing requirements for input from the 
relevant FLM and considering potential visibility impacts to Class I 
areas from new major stationary sources or major modifications of 
existing major stationary sources. See 40 CFR 52.21(p)(1).
Reasonably Attributable Visibility Impairment Rules
    EPA has promulgated a FIP for the Virgin Islands, which 
incorporates the provisions of 40 CFR 52.26, 52.29, to address RAVI in 
the Virgin Islands. See 40 CFR 52.2781. As part of its review of new 
sources for impairment of visibility at the Class I area in the Virgin 
Islands, EPA is responsible for determining if sources have a 
reasonably attributable impairment to visibility in the Class I area.
On-going Implementation of Federal Mobile Source Rules
    Mobile source NOX and SO2 emissions are 
expected to decrease in Virgin Islands from 2000 to 2018, due to 
several existing Federal mobile source regulations. However, we have 
not quantified these reductions due to uncertainties in the composition 
of the fleet, use of fuels and vehicle turnover, as compared to EPA's 
assumptions in our mobile emissions models.
Measures To Mitigate the Impacts of Construction Activities
    Potential sources of emissions from construction activities include 
exhaust from fuel-burning equipment on the site; vehicles working on 
the site, delivering materials, and hauling away excavate; employee 
vehicles; and fugitive dust from exposed earth, material stockpiles, 
and vehicles on roadways, especially unpaved site accesses. These 
activities can result in emissions of NOX, SO2, 
particulate matter (PM10 and PM2.5 from engine 
exhaust and as fugitive dust from roadways and material handling), and 
primary organic aerosols.
    The VIDPNR regulates emissions of air pollutants, including 
construction emissions, and EPA will work with the VIDPNR to determine 
if local regulations and enforcement can help reduce pollutants that 
contribute to regional haze in the National Park.

     Table 6--Reasonable Progress Goals and Projected Future Visibility for the Virgin Islands National Park
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                 Natural       Improvement to
                                              Baseline         background     reach reasonable   2018 Projected
                                          visibility (2000-  conditions for     progress goal      improvement
                                                2004)             2064            for 2018
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
20% Worst Days..........................             17.02             10.68              1.48              0.16
20% Best Days...........................              8.54              4.41              0.96              0.00
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(All values expressed as deciviews--lower deciviews means better visibility.)

3. BART
    BART is an element of EPA's LTS, as well as a requirement to 
evaluate controls for older sources that affect Class I areas, for the 
first implementation period. The BART regional haze requirement 
consists of three steps: (a) Identification of all the BART-eligible 
sources; (b) an assessment of whether the BART-eligible sources are 
subject to BART; and (c) the determination of the BART controls.
i. BART-Eligible Sources in the Virgin Islands
    The first component of a BART evaluation is to identify all the 
BART eligible sources within the United States Virgin Islands (``Virgin 
Islands'' or ``Territory''). While the Virgin Islands' Department of 
Planning and Natural Resources (VIDPNR), the Territory's environmental 
agency, did not submit a SIP, EPA's evaluation process of identifying 
BART-eligible sources included a review of Title V permits, a review of 
Title V applications received from VIDPNR, and direct communications 
with HOVENSA, LLC, one of the BART-eligible sources. To establish which 
facilities are BART-eligible, EPA evaluated eligibility criteria for 
combustion and other process units at the following eight sources 
throughout the Territory:
     HOVENSA, LLC (St. Croix)
     Three of the Virgin Islands Water and Power Authority (VI 
WAPA) facilities--one on each of the islands (St. Croix, St. Thomas and 
St. John)
     St. Croix Renaissance Group, LLLP (St. Croix)
     Wyndham Sugar Bay Beach Club & Resort (St. Thomas)
     Divi Carina Bay Hotel (St. Croix)
     Buccaneer Hotel (St. Croix)

EPA identified three of the eight sources, including multiple 
combustion or process units at each source, as BART-eligible. The three 
BART-eligible sources identified by EPA as potentially impacting the 
Class I area, summarized in Table 7, met the following criteria to be 
classified as BART-eligible:

[[Page 37852]]

     One or more emissions units at the facility are within one 
of the 26 categories listed in the BART Guidelines (70 FR 39104, 39158; 
July 6, 2005);
     The emission unit(s) began operation after August 6, 1962, 
and were still in existence on August 7, 1977;
     Potential emissions of SO2, NOX, and 
PM10 from subject units are 250 tons or more per year.

These criteria are in section 169A(b)(2)(A) of the Act, codified in 40 
CFR part 51, Appendix Y. None of the remaining five sources met these 
criteria and therefore were removed from consideration for BART review.
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP25JN12.008


[[Page 37853]]


BILLING CODE 6560-50-C
    The BART Guidelines recommend addressing SO2, 
NOX, and PM10 as visibility-impairment 
pollutants. The Guidelines note that states can decide whether to 
evaluate VOC or ammonia emissions. EPA is not developing additional 
strategies for VOC or ammonia emissions in its FIP. EPA proposes to 
determine that the lack of tools available to estimate emissions and 
subsequently model VOC and ammonia effects on visibility inhibits EPA 
from addressing BART for these pollutants and that SO2, 
NOX, PM10, and PM2.5 are the 
pollutants reasonably anticipated to contribute to visibility 
impairment to target under BART.
ii. Sources Subject to BART
    The second component of the BART evaluation is to identify those 
BART eligible sources that may reasonably be anticipated to cause or 
contribute to visibility impairment at any Class I area, i.e., those 
sources that are subject to BART. The BART Guidelines allow us to 
consider exempting some BART-eligible sources from further BART review 
because a source may not reasonably be anticipated to cause or 
contribute to any visibility impairment in a Class I area. Consistent 
with the BART Guidelines, the EPA, through the use of a contractor, 
performed dispersion modeling to assess the extent of each BART-
eligible source's contribution to visibility impairment at the Class I 
area and we propose to rely on that modeling described below.
Modeling Methodology
    The BART Guidelines provide that we may use the CALPUFF \6\ 
modeling system or another appropriate model to predict the visibility 
impacts from a single source on a Class I area and to, therefore, 
determine whether an individual source is anticipated to cause or 
contribute to impairment of visibility in Class I areas, i.e., ``is 
subject to BART.'' The Guidelines state that we find CALPUFF is the 
best regulatory modeling application currently available for predicting 
a single source's contribution to visibility impairment (70 FR 39162, 
July 6, 2005). The BART Guidelines also recommend that a modeling 
protocol be developed for making individual source attributions, which 
in this case is the EPA-approved workplan developed by the contractor. 
To determine whether each BART-eligible source has a significant impact 
on visibility, we propose to use the CALPUFF modeling to estimate daily 
visibility impacts above estimated natural conditions at the Class I 
area, which is the Virgin Islands National Park, covering much of St. 
John as well as Hassel Island near St. Thomas. There are no other Class 
I areas within 300 kilometers (km) of any BART-eligible facility in the 
Virgin Islands. Emissions were modeled with four years worth of 
meteorological data, from 2007 through 2010. We used these years 
because more meteorological data were available and the output provided 
from the modeling was closer to the actual monitored data than the 
period 2001 to 2004. The modeling evaluated the impact of three BART 
sources on the Class I area. EPA believes that this modeling provides a 
reasonable estimate of daily visibility impacts above estimated natural 
conditions at the Class I area. Therefore, we propose to use the 
results of this CALPUFF modeling to determine whether each BART-
eligible source has a significant impact on visibility.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Contribution Threshold
    For the modeling to determine the applicability of BART to single 
sources, the BART Guidelines note that the first step is to set a 
contribution threshold to assess whether the impact of a single source 
is sufficient to cause or contribute to visibility impairment at a 
Class I area. The BART Guidelines state that, ``[a] single source that 
is responsible for a 1.0 deciview change or more should be considered 
to `cause' visibility impairment'' (70 FR 39161, July 6, 2005). The 
BART Guidelines also state that ``the appropriate threshold for 
determining whether a source contributes to visibility impairment may 
reasonably differ across states,'' but, ``[a]s a general matter, any 
threshold that you use for determining whether a source `contributes' 
to visibility impairment should not be higher than 0.5 deciviews.'' Id. 
Further, in setting a contribution threshold, states or EPA should 
``consider the number of emissions sources affecting the Class I areas 
at issue and the magnitude of the individual sources' impacts.'' Id. 
The Guidelines affirm that states and EPA are free to use a lower 
threshold if it can be concluded that the location of a large number of 
BART-eligible sources in proximity to a Class I area justifies this 
approach.
    EPA proposes to follow the BART Guidelines for determining which 
sources are subject to BART for the Virgin Islands FIP. EPA took into 
consideration that the Virgin Islands BART sources only affect one 
Class I area, so numerous small impacts at many Class I areas will not 
occur. With only three BART sources, the situation is much different 
than in the eastern United States where over one hundred sources can 
have overlapping plumes that make a larger impact on several Class I 
areas (70 FR 39121, July 6, 2005). As shown in Table 8, EPA proposes to 
exempt two of the three BART-eligible sources in the Territory from 
further review under the BART requirements. The visibility impacts 
attributable to each of the VIWAPA sources is very low (at or less than 
0.1 deciviews). Our proposed approach to contribution is to capture any 
source responsible for a major visibility impact, while excluding other 
sources with very small impacts.
Sources Identified by EPA as BART-Eligible and Subject to BART
    The results of the CALPUFF modeling are summarized in Table 8. EPA 
is proposing that the VIWAPA facilities not be subject to BART because 
the demonstrated impacts are very low at all Class I area receptors. 
EPA proposes that the HOVENSA facility is subject to BART because of 
the high demonstrated impacts at receptors in the Class I area.

           Table 8--Individual BART-eligible Source Visibility Impacts on Virgin Islands Class I Area
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                  Average 4-year
                                           Class I area and       98th percentile
        Facility and location            locations of modeling      visibility            Subject to BART?
                                               receptor               impact
                                                                    (deciviews)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
VI WAPA..............................  St. John................              0.06  No.
St Thomas............................  Hassel Island, St.                    0.04
                                        Thomas.

[[Page 37854]]

 
VI WAPA..............................  St. John................              0.09  No.
St. Croix............................  Hassel Island, St.                    0.10
                                        Thomas.
HOVENSA..............................  St. John................              1.91  Yes.
St. Croix............................  Hassel Island, St.                    2.35  .............................
                                        Thomas.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

iii. BART Evaluations for Sources Identified as Subject to BART by EPA
    The third and final component of a BART evaluation is making BART 
determinations for all BART subject sources. In making BART 
determinations, section 169A(g)(2) of the Act requires that states 
consider the following factors: (1) The costs of compliance; (2) the 
energy and non-air quality environmental impacts of compliance; (3) any 
existing pollution control technology in use at the source; (4) the 
remaining useful life of the source; and (5) the degree of improvement 
in visibility that may reasonably be anticipated to result from the use 
of such technology. However, a source that implements the maximum 
feasible level of control for its emissions has met the BART 
requirements, and no further analysis is needed. Conversely, a source 
that limits its emissions via an enforceable permit limit, or shuts 
down and surrenders its permits, no longer needs to be subject to BART 
review.
    EPA determined that HOVENSA is subject to BART review. The 
following summarizes EPA's BART analyses and evaluation for each of the 
HOVENSA units listed in Table 7 that are subject to BART. For further 
details the reader is referred to EPA's BART analyses contained in the 
FIP, located in the docket for this proposal at EPA's Web site at 
www.regulations.gov.
BART Determinations for HOVENSA
a. Facility Description and Current Status
    HOVENSA is a petroleum refinery located in St. Croix, U.S. Virgin 
Islands. Operations began in 1966 but in October 1998, the Amerada Hess 
Corporation and Petroleos de Venezuela, S.A. formed a new corporation, 
HOVENSA, L.L.C. (HOVENSA) which acquired ownership and operational 
control of the St. Croix refinery. HOVENSA has a design capacity of 
545,000 barrels of crude oil per day, the majority of which is received 
from Venezuela.
    In June 2011, EPA and the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) entered 
into a consent decree (CD) requiring HOVENSA to pay a civil penalty and 
requiring the implementation of new pollution controls that would help 
protect the public health and resolve alleged Clean Air Act violations 
at the St. Croix refinery. The alleged violations cover emissions of 
SO2, NOX, VOCs and benzene from the Fluidized 
Catalytic Cracking Unit (FCCU), refinery heaters, boilers, generating 
combustion turbines, compressor engines, flares, sulfur recovery units 
and process units related to VOC and benzene emissions. EPA estimates 
that for the affected process heaters, boilers, generating turbines, 
and compressor engines, the cumulative reduction in NOX 
emissions, attributable to the CD, which are defined there as 
``Qualifying Controls'' are as follows: 1,079 tpy by June 2015, 3,663 
tpy by June 2016 and 4,744 tpy by June 2019.\7\ Also, EPA estimates 
that for the affected FCCU, FCCU catalytic regenerator, boilers, 
process heaters, generating combustion turbines, sulfur recovery 
plants, and flares, the reduction in SO2 emissions, 
attributable to the CD is 3,460 tpy. The CD requires SO2 
reductions from the flares within the 2018-2021 timeframe whereas 
SO2 reductions for other units are to be implemented within 
the period of 2011-2014. A copy of the CD is included in the Docket. 
For further information the reader is referred to http://www.epa.gov/compliance/resources/cases/civil/caa/hovensa.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See Appendix A of the CD for a list of affected sources: 
heaters and boilers greater than 40 mm BTU/hour, generating turbines 
and compressor engines.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On January 18, 2012, HOVENSA announced the refinery on St. Croix 
would shut down operations and become an oil storage terminal. 
Currently, HOVENSA has shutdown all refinery operations except for some 
process unit cleanout operations. HOVENSA is still finalizing 
intermediate and long term plans for operation of the bulk storage 
terminal to determine what utilities will continue to be needed. In the 
meantime, HOVENSA has retained its air permits and remains subject to 
the CD. Since HOVENSA has retained its permits, EPA evaluated BART for 
HOVENSA's BART-eligible sources.
b. BART Analysis
Eight Boilers
    HOVENSA owns and operates nine steam boilers that are capable of 
combusting either refinery fuel gas (RFG) or No. 6 fuel oil and the 
heat input to the boilers is in the range of 205 to 405 mm BTU/hr. One 
of the boilers (Boiler 10) was constructed in 1999 and therefore is not 
BART-eligible. EPA has determined there are eight boilers subject to 
BART. SO2 emissions are controlled by a permit limiting the 
sulfur content of No. 6 fuel oil to 0.50% or 1.0% depending upon wind 
conditions as defined in the permit. In addition, the June 2011 CD will 
lower SO2 emissions by requiring that the combustion of RFG 
by the boilers, containing hydrogen sulfide (H2S), meet the 
requirements of the New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) part 60, 
Subparts J and Ja. The June 2011 CD requires the facility to lower the 
sulfur content of No. 6 fuel oil to 0.55% maximum, 0.50% annually, and 
to a low limit of 0.30% depending upon wind conditions as defined in 
the CD. There are no existing controls for NOX and PM 
emissions from the BART-eligible boilers.
    For control of SO2, NOX and PM emissions, 
based upon EPA's analysis, EPA is proposing that current operations 
represent BART for each of the boilers subject to BART. For 
SO2 and PM control, EPA's contractor evaluated Duct 
Injection and Fabric Filters (DIFF) using lime as the alkaline reagent. 
DIFF is a semi-wet flue gas desulfurization (FGD) process. The fabric 
filter is the PM control device. EPA has determined that the DIFF 
controls evaluated for the boilers subject to BART are not cost 
effective. EPA determined that the cost effectiveness for the eight 
boilers subject to BART varied from about $19,100 to $39,600 per ton of 
SO2 and PM reduced, which is too costly to be cost effective 
per ton of reduced emissions. In addition, it is EPA's opinion that if 
maximum controls had been evaluated, such as lime or

[[Page 37855]]

limestone wet FGD, the cost effectiveness would be even higher than for 
the DIFF controls evaluated. Therefore, EPA determines that for 
SO2 and PM controls, current operation is considered as 
BART.
    For control of NOX emissions, EPA's contractor evaluated 
selective non-catalytic reduction (SNCR) using ammonia as the reagent. 
EPA has determined that implementation of SNCR controls for boilers 
subject to BART are cost effective. The actual cost effectiveness for 
the boilers is in the range of about $710 to $860 per ton of 
NOX removed. As summarized in Table 8, the visibility impact 
(98th percentile, 4 year average) of all BART-eligible sources from 
HOVENSA in the Class I area at St. John is 1.91 dv for all pollutants. 
EPA further analyzed the contribution of various chemical species and 
components on the visibility impacts and has established that the 
contribution of NOX compounds is about 5% which would be 
equivalent to 0.09 dv visibility impact at St. John from all HOVENSA 
units subject to BART, including the 8 boilers subject to BART. Since 
the visibility impact due to NOX emissions from all HOVENSA 
units subject to BART is only about 0.09 dv, EPA proposes that the 
implementation of any NOX controls (even SNCR or selective 
catalytic reduction (SCR)) would not have any significant visibility 
impact on the Class I area in the Virgin Islands and therefore EPA 
proposes to determine that current operation of the boilers subject to 
BART is considered BART for controlling NOX emissions. Also, 
as discussed in the Reasonable Progress Goals section, EPA is proposing 
to require HOVENSA to provide a complete analysis of reasonable 
measures, if it resumes refinery operations.
Combustion Turbines
    HOVENSA owns and operates eleven combustion turbines that are 
capable of combusting two or more of the following fuel combinations: 
refinery fuel gas (RFG), liquefied petroleum gas (LPG) and distillate 
oil. Two of the turbines were constructed in 1993 and 2009 and are 
therefore not BART-eligible. EPA has determined nine turbines are 
subject to BART. SO2 emissions are controlled by limiting 
the fuel sulfur content as follows: distillate oil has a permit sulfur 
limit of 0.20%; LPG does not contain any sulfur; RFG sulfur content 
will be limited by the CD that requires the combustion of RFG with 
limits on the H2S content in accordance with the NSPS 
requirements at subpart J or Ja. For NOX, only one turbine 
has implemented control technology (steam injection). For PM, none of 
the turbines subject to BART have any controls.
    For control of SO2, NOX and PM emissions, 
based upon EPA's analysis, EPA is proposing that current operations 
represent BART for each of the nine combustion turbines subject to 
BART. For SO2 and PM control, as with the boilers discussed 
above, EPA's contractor evaluated Duct Injection and Fabric Filters 
(DIFF) using lime as the alkaline reagent. Based upon this analysis, 
EPA has determined that the DIFF controls evaluated for the nine 
combustion turbines are not cost effective. EPA determined that the 
cost effectiveness for the nine combustion turbines varied from about 
$122,300 (8 turbines) to $359,186 (1 turbine) per ton of SO2 
and PM reduced. The cost effectiveness values for the combustion 
turbines are much higher than for the boilers because the 
SO2 emissions from the boilers are much higher (by a factor 
of 2 to 4 times) than from the turbines. Therefore, EPA determines that 
for SO2 and PM controls, current operation is considered as 
BART.
    For control of NOX emissions from the turbines (as 
discussed above for the boilers) EPA's contractor evaluated selective 
non-catalytic reduction (SNCR) using ammonia as the reagent. EPA has 
determined, except for one turbine, that implementation of SNCR 
controls for eight turbines are cost effective. The actual cost 
effectiveness for the turbines is from about $1,750 to $1,890 per ton 
of NOX removed. The one turbine where control is not cost 
effectiveness had a value of $9,500/ton, because the NOX 
emissions are much lower due to NOX controls installed on 
the turbine. Even though controls on eight of the nine turbines are 
cost effective, EPA has determined, for the same reasons discussed 
above for the boilers, that the visibility impact due to NOX 
emissions is only about 0.09 dv from HOVENSA units subject to BART, and 
therefore the implementation of any new NOX controls (even 
SNCR or SCR) would not have any significant visibility impact on the 
Class I area in the Virgin Islands. Therefore, EPA is determining that 
current operations of the nine turbines subject to BART are considered 
BART for controlling NOX emissions.
Process Heaters
    HOVENSA owns seventy process heaters of which twenty-one were shut 
down in early 2011. Of the seventy heaters, EPA has determined that 
sixty-four are subject to BART whereas the remaining six heaters were 
constructed after 1977 and are therefore not BART-eligible. Of the 
sixty-four process heaters subject to BART, fifteen are capable of 
combusting either RFG or No. 6 fuel oil whereas the remaining forty-
nine heaters combust only RFG.
    For the fifteen heaters capable of combusting No. 6 fuel oil, 
SO2 emissions are controlled by permits limiting the sulfur 
content of No. 6 fuel oil to 0.50% or 1.0%. The June 2011 CD provides 
for lowering SO2 emissions by establishing lower sulfur 
content of No. 6 fuel oil. In addition, the CD requires process heaters 
to meet the NSPS at part 60, either subpart J or Ja. None of the 
process heaters subject to BART have any controls for either 
NOX or PM.
    For control of SO2, NOX and PM emissions, 
based upon EPA's analysis, EPA is proposing that current operations 
represent BART for each of the sixty-four process heaters subject to 
BART. Although EPA's contractor determined cost effectiveness for only 
the boilers and combustion turbines, EPA has concluded that, for 
control of SO2, NOX and PM, there is sufficient 
information to make a determination that current operation represents 
BART for each of the process heaters subject to BART. For the 
SO2 and PM BART determination, EPA notes that the 
SO2 emissions, heat input and fuel type for each of the six 
largest process heaters is similar to that of most of the boilers which 
EPA determined BART control was not cost effective. It is EPA's 
judgment from this size comparison between the boilers and the six 
largest heaters that the cost effectiveness for the process heaters 
would be less than the cost effectiveness for the boilers, but still 
would result in determining additional controls as not being cost 
effective. The great majority of the remainder of the process heaters 
combust only RFG, have a smaller heat input (each by a factor of about 
2.75 average) and have lower SO2 emissions (each by a factor 
of about 7.8 on average) than the six larger heaters. Based upon this 
comparison, EPA would expect that controls for the remaining smaller 
process heaters will not be cost effective. Therefore, for 
SO2 and PM emissions, EPA proposes to determine that the 
controls for all the process heaters subject to BART are not cost 
effective and that current operation is considered BART.
    As discussed above for the boilers and combustion turbines, EPA 
determined that implementation of controls on NOX emissions 
from all BART units at HOVENSA have an insignificant visibility impact 
on the Class I area and EPA is proposing to determine this is also true 
for the process heaters. Therefore EPA proposes that current operation 
of the process heaters subject

[[Page 37856]]

to BART is considered as BART for controlling NOX emissions.
Other Significant HOVENSA Emission Units Subject to BART
    HOVENSA owns and operates many other emission units that are 
subject to BART, including reciprocating gas compressors, tail gas 
treatment units, tail gas incinerators, flares, water intake pumps and 
a desalination water pump. For many of these units, actual emissions 
are negligible and PTE emissions are small. Also, the June 2011 CD 
contains additional compliance requirements for these units, such as 
meeting the NSPS emission limits under part 60 subparts J or Ja.
    In all cases, EPA is proposing that current operations represent 
BART control for SO2, NOX and PM emissions for 
each of these sources subject to BART. It is EPA's judgment that any 
detailed cost analysis would conclude that implementation of any 
additional control technologies for controlling emissions of 
SO2, NOX or PM would have resulted in higher cost 
effectiveness values. Also, for the same reasons discussed above for 
the boilers, turbines and process heaters, EPA proposes that any 
reduction in NOX emissions will not significantly improve 
visibility at the Class I area in the Virgin Islands and therefore 
current operation of each source subject to BART (without any new 
controls) represents BART for controlling NOX emissions.
    The reader is referred to the Regional Haze Virgin Islands FIP 
found in the Docket for this proposal, which contains a complete 
description of all of the HOVENSA emission units subject to BART, and 
the respective BART determinations.
    While there is uncertainty at this time regarding future operations 
at HOVENSA, the CD does contain emission reductions and emission limit 
requirements which allow us to project that should HOVENSA resume 
operating as a refinery, it may be at a lower capacity factor, with 
much less sulfur. Although these resulting reductions in sulfur 
emissions are not enforceable requirements under this action, they 
suggest that SO2 emissions from HOVENSA may decrease even in 
the absence of any BART requirements. This analysis also indicates that 
at least some of the units at HOVENSA may be coming to the end of their 
useful life and not operate again.
    In summary, EPA's BART evaluation of the boilers, turbines, process 
heaters, and several other source categories that are subject to BART 
has determined that no additional control is consistent with BART, 
given the unique situation with HOVENSA and the unique visibility 
conditions in the Virgin Islands, and is proposing that current 
operations represent BART for HOVENSA. As such, EPA's Federal plan 
includes the establishment of emission limits for SO2, 
NOX and PM equivalent to the potential to emit (PTE) for 
each unit subject to BART, as derived from HOVENSA's permit limit 
conditions. EPA's Federal plan includes these PTE limits in the 
spreadsheets found in the Attachments to the FIP.

C. Consultation With Federal Land Managers

    Under section 169A(d) of the Act, we are required to consult with 
the appropriate FLM(s) before proposing the Virgin Islands Regional 
Haze FIP. We must also include a summary of the FLMs' conclusions and 
recommendations in this notice. EPA has consulted informally with the 
FLMs throughout the development of the Virgin Islands Regional Haze 
FIP, including periodic updates during national teleconferences between 
EPA and the FLMs for the past several years. EPA also had two formal 
discussions with the FLMs as part of the consultation process. On May 
28, 2008, EPA Region 2 held a teleconference with representatives of 
the National Park Service to brief them about our technical findings 
regarding regional haze in the Virgin Islands. Most recently, on May 9, 
2012, EPA Region 2 held discussions about our final plans for 
addressing regional haze in the Virgin Islands. Following that 
discussion, EPA provided the National Park Service with copies of the 
BART analysis for their comments. EPA provided the FLMs with a copy of 
the proposed FIP just prior to publishing this proposal and 
acknowledges, as does the FLM, that any formal comments by the FLMs 
will be provided to EPA during the public comment period for this 
proposal.
    In addition, 40 CFR 51.308(i)(4) specifies the regional haze FIP 
must provide procedures for continuing consultation with the FLMs on 
the implementation of the visibility protection program required by 40 
CFR subpart P, including development and review of implementation plan 
revisions and 5-year progress reports, and on the implementation of 
other programs having the potential to contribute to impairment of 
visibility in mandatory Class I Federal areas. We intend to continue to 
consult with the FLMs regarding all aspects of the visibility 
protection program and we encourage the Virgin Islands government to do 
the same.

D. Periodic SIP Revisions and Five-Year Progress Reports

    EPA commits to coordinate with the Virgin Islands government in 
order to revise and submit a regional haze implementation plan by July 
31, 2018, to address the next ten years of progress toward the national 
goal in the Act of eliminating manmade haze by 2064, and to submit a 
plan every ten years thereafter, in accordance with the requirements 
listed in 40 CFR 51.308(f) of the Federal rule for regional haze. EPA's 
commitment includes continuing to consult with the FLMs on the 
implementation of section 51.308 and this FIP, including development 
and review of future SIP revisions and five-year progress reports, and 
on the implementation of other programs affecting the impairment of 
visibility in Class I areas. EPA commits to address the following in 
its Mid-Course Review report: address any uncertainties encountered 
during regional haze planning process; report on the progress of the 
BART analysis, determinations, and implementation; report on whether 
additional potential actions identified in its plan or through public 
comment, will be implemented and the status of those efforts. The 
reasonable progress report will evaluate the progress made towards the 
RPGs for the Virgin Islands National Park. EPA will work with the 
Virgin Islands territorial government to prepare and submit updates to 
the emission inventories, a mid-course review and a revised plan for 
the next ten-year period starting in 2018.

E. Coordinating Regional Haze and Reasonably Attributable Visibility 
Impairment (RAVI) LTS

    EPA is the reviewing agency for the Prevention of Significant 
Deterioration (PSD) program in the Virgin Islands and is responsible 
for preventing new and modified sources from significantly impacting 
visibility in the Class I area of the Virgin Islands National Park on 
St. John and Hassel Islands. EPA will review the impact of proposed 
sources on visibility under 40 CFR 52.26 and 52.28, by implementing the 
PSD permit requirements for new or modified major sources of air 
pollutants located within 100 kilometers of the Class I area, or within 
a larger radius on a case-by-case basis, in accordance with all 
applicable Federal rules for review of the impacts on Class I areas. We 
propose to find that the Regional Haze FIP appropriately supplements 
and augments EPA's FIP for RAVI visibility provisions by updating the 
monitoring and LTS provisions to address regional haze. We

[[Page 37857]]

discuss the relevant monitoring provisions further below.

F. Agricultural and Forestry Smoke Management Techniques

    40 CFR 51.308(d)(3)(v)(E) requires the Virgin Islands to consider 
smoke management techniques for the purposes of agricultural and 
forestry management in developing reasonable progress goals. Smoke 
Management Programs are only required when smoke impacts from fires 
managed for resource benefits contribute significantly to regional 
haze. The results of the emissions inventory indicate that emissions 
from agricultural, managed, and prescribed burning are very minor 
source categories. It is unlikely that fires for agricultural or 
forestry management cause large impacts on visibility in the Virgin 
Islands National Park. On rare occasions, smoke from major fires 
degrades the air quality and visibility in the Virgin Islands. However, 
these fires are generally unwanted wildfires that are not subject to 
smoke management programs. Since there is no evidence of agricultural 
burning contributing to haze at Class I areas, we propose to determine 
that no further controls on agricultural burning or forest fires are 
reasonable at this time.

G. Monitoring Strategy and Other Implementation Plan Requirements

    40 CFR 51.308(d)(4) requires that the FIP contain a monitoring 
strategy for measuring, characterizing, and reporting regional haze 
visibility impairment that is representative of all mandatory Class I 
Federal areas within the state. This monitoring strategy must be 
coordinated with the monitoring strategy required in 40 CFR 51.305 for 
RAVI. As 40 CFR 51.308(d)(4) notes, compliance with this requirement 
may be met through participation in the IMPROVE network. Consistent 
with EPA's monitoring regulations for RAVI and regional haze, EPA will 
rely on the IMPROVE network for compliance purposes, in addition to any 
RAVI monitoring that may be needed in the future. Therefore, we propose 
to find that we have satisfied the requirements of 40 CFR 51.308(d)(4).
    The primary monitoring network for regional haze in the United 
States is the IMPROVE network. There is currently one IMPROVE site in 
the Virgin Islands, in the Virgin Islands National Park. IMPROVE 
monitoring data from 2000-2004 serves as the baseline for the regional 
haze program, and is relied upon in our proposed FIP. Data produced by 
the IMPROVE monitoring network are essential for the verification of 
the effects of changes in emissions on visibility in Class I areas and 
will be needed for preparing the 5-year progress reports and the 10-
year SIP revisions, each of which relies on analysis of the preceding 
five years of data. EPA will continue to encourage the National Park 
Service to continue to operate and maintain the monitoring site in the 
Virgin Islands National Park, providing support as EPA deems 
appropriate.

V. What action is EPA proposing to take?

    EPA is proposing a Federal Implementation Plan for Regional Haze 
for the Territory of the United States Virgin Islands. This FIP 
addresses progress toward reducing regional haze for the first 
implementation period ending in 2018. The proposed FIP includes 
emission reductions to begin the reasonable progress needed to achieve 
the overall objective of no man-made interference with visibility by 
2064. The proposed FIP relies on emission reductions from existing 
emissions controls and programs currently in effect, and proposes to 
require HOVENSA to notify EPA in the event it resumes operation of the 
refinery process units and to provide an analysis for reasonable 
measures consistent with EPA's Regional Haze Guidelines. Thus, EPA is 
proposing a Regional Haze Plan to satisfy the requirements of the Act. 
EPA is taking this action pursuant to CAA sections 110(a), 301(a), 169A 
and 169B. EPA is soliciting public comments on the issues discussed in 
this document and will consider these comments before taking final 
action.

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review

    This proposed action is not a ``significant regulatory action'' 
under the terms of Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) 
and is therefore not subject to review under Executive Orders 12866 and 
13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011). The proposed Virgin Islands 
Regional Haze FIP requires implementation of existing emissions 
controls and emission reduction strategies on one facility and is not a 
rule of general applicability.

B. Paperwork Reduction Act

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

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) generally requires an agency 
to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to 
notice and comment rulemaking requirements under the Administrative 
Procedure Act or any other statute unless the agency certifies that the 
rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial 
number of small entities. Small entities include small businesses, 
small organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions.
    For purposes of assessing the impacts of today's proposed rule on 
small entities, small entity is defined as: (1) A small business as 
defined by the Small Business Administration's (SBA) regulations at 13 
CFR 121.201; (2) a small governmental jurisdiction that is a government 
of a city, county, town, school district or special district with a 
population of less than 50,000; and (3) a small organization that is 
any not-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 Regional Haze FIP that EPA is proposing for

[[Page 37858]]

purposes of the regional haze program consists of imposing existing 
Federal controls to meet the BART requirement for SO2, 
NOX, and PM emissions on specific units at one facility in 
the Virgin Islands. The net result of this FIP action is that EPA is 
proposing existing direct emission controls on selected units at only 
one facility. The facility in question is a large petroleum refinery 
that is not owned by a small entity, and therefore is not a small 
entity.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)

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

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

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

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

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

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

    EPA interprets EO 13045 as applying only to those regulatory 
actions that concern health or safety risks, such that the analysis 
required under section 5-501 of the EO has the potential to influence 
the regulation. This action is not subject to EO 13045 because it 
implements specific standards established by Congress in statutes. 
However, to the extent this proposed rule will limit emissions of 
SO2, NOX, and PM the rule will have a beneficial 
effect on children's health by reducing air pollution.

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

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

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

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

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

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

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Intergovernmental 
relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Particulate matter, Reporting and 
recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic compounds.

    Dated: June 14, 2012.
Judith A. Enck,
Regional Administrator, Region 2.

    Part 52, chapter I, title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations is 
proposed to be amended as follows:

PART 52--[AMENDED]

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

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

Subpart CCC--Virgin Islands

    2. In Sec.  52.2781, add paragraph (d) to read as follows:


Sec.  52.2781  Visibility protection.

* * * * *
    (d) Regional Haze Plan for Virgin Islands National Park.
    (1) Applicability. This section addresses Clean Air Act 
requirements and EPA's rules to prevent and remedy future and existing 
man-made impairment of visibility in the mandatory Class I area of the 
Virgin Islands National Park through a Regional Haze Program. This 
section applies to the owner and operator of HOVENSA L.L.C. (HOVENSA), 
a petroleum refinery located on St. Croix, U.S. Virgin Islands.
    (2) Definitions. Terms not defined below shall have the meaning 
given them in the Clean Air Act or EPA's regulations implementing the 
Clean Air Act. For purposes of this section:
    NOX means nitrogen oxides.
    Owner/operator means any person who owns, leases, operates, 
controls, or supervises a facility or source identified in paragraph 
(a) of this section.
    PM means particulate matter.
    Process unit means any collection of structures and/or equipment 
that processes, assembles, applies, blends, or otherwise uses material 
inputs to produce or store an intermediate or a completed product. A 
single stationary source may contain more than one process unit, and a 
process unit may

[[Page 37859]]

contain more than one emissions unit. For a petroleum refinery, there 
are several categories of process units that could include: those that 
separate and/or distill petroleum feedstocks; those that change 
molecular structures; petroleum treating processes; auxiliary 
facilities, such as steam generators and hydrogen production units; and 
those that load, unload, blend or store intermediate or completed 
products.
    SO2 means sulfur dioxide.
    Startup means the setting in operation of an affected facility for 
any purpose.
    (3) Reasonable Progress Measures. On June 7, 2011, EPA and HOVENSA 
entered into a Consent Decree (CD) in the U.S. District Court for the 
Virgin Islands to resolve alleged Clean Air Act violations at its St. 
Croix, Virgin Islands facility. The CD requires HOVENSA, among other 
things, to achieve emission limits and install new pollution controls 
pursuant to a schedule for compliance. The measures required by the CD 
are expected to reduce emissions of NOX by 5,031 tons per 
year (tpy) and SO2 by 3,460 tpy. The emission limitations, 
pollution controls, schedules for compliance, reporting, and 
recordkeeping provisions of the HOVENSA CD constitute an element of the 
long term strategy and address the reasonable progress provisions of 40 
CFR 51.308(d)(1). Should the existing federally enforceable HOVENSA CD 
be revised, EPA will reevaluate, and if necessary, revise the FIP after 
public notice and comment.
    (4) HOVENSA requirement for notification and four factor analysis. 
HOVENSA must notify EPA 60 days in advance of startup and resumption of 
operation of refinery process units at the HOVENSA, St. Croix, Virgin 
Islands facility. HOVENSA shall submit such notice to the Director of 
the Clean Air and Sustainability Division, U.S. Environmental 
Protection Agency Region 2, 290 Broadway, 25th Floor, New York, New 
York, 10007-1866. HOVENSA's notification to EPA that it intends to 
start up refinery process units must include a complete analysis of 
reasonable measures needed to comply with regional haze requirements. 
EPA will revise the FIP as necessary, after public notice and comment, 
in accordance with regional haze requirements including the 
``reasonable progress'' provisions in 40 CFR 51.308(d)(1). HOVENSA will 
be required to install any controls that are required by the revised 
FIP as expeditiously as practicable, but no later than 5 years after 
the effective date of the revised FIP.

[FR Doc. 2012-15463 Filed 6-22-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


