```

[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 195 (Tuesday, October 9, 2012)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 61477-61506]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-23238]

[[Page 61477]]

Vol. 77

Tuesday,

No. 195

October 9, 2012

Part II

Environmental Protection Agency

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

40 CFR Part 52

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

Federal Register / Vol. 77 , No. 195 / Tuesday, October 9, 2012 / 
Rules and Regulations

[[Page 61478]]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R09-OAR-2012-0345, FRL-9727-1]

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

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is issuing a final 
Federal Implementation Plan (FIP) to address regional haze in the State 
of Hawaii. This FIP addresses the requirements of the Clean Air Act 
(CAA or ``the Act'') and EPA's rules concerning reasonable progress 
towards the national goal of preventing any future and remedying any 
existing man-made impairment of visibility in mandatory Class I areas 
in the State of Hawaii.
    The FIP establishes an emissions cap of 3,550 tons of sulfur 
dioxide (SO2) per year from three specific fuel oil-fired, 
electric utility boilers on the Island of Hawaii beginning in 2018. The 
Hawaii Electric Light Company (HELCO) can minimize impacts on the 
ratepayers by meeting the cap through the increased use of renewable 
energy and energy conservation. EPA finds that this control measure, in 
conjunction with other emissions control requirements that are already 
in place, will ensure that reasonable progress is made during this 
first planning period toward the national goal of no man-made 
visibility impairment by 2064 at Hawaii's two Class I areas.
    EPA worked closely with the State of Hawaii in the development of 
this plan and the State has agreed to incorporate the control 
requirements into the relevant permits. The State has indicated that it 
intends to take full responsibility for the development of future 
Regional Haze plans.

DATES: This rule is effective on November 8, 2012.

ADDRESSES: EPA has established docket number EPA-R09-OAR-2012-0345 for 
this action. Generally, documents in the docket are available 
electronically at http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at EPA 
Region 9, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, California. Please note 
that while many of the documents in the docket are listed at http://www.regulations.gov, some information may not be specifically listed in 
the index to the docket and may be publicly available only at the hard 
copy location (e.g., copyrighted material, large maps, multi-volume 
reports or otherwise voluminous materials), and some may not be 
available at either location (e.g., confidential business information). 
To inspect the hard copy materials, please schedule an appointment 
during normal business hours with the contact listed directly below.

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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, wherever ``we,'' 
``us,'' or ``our,'' is used, we mean the United States Environmental 
Protection Agency (EPA).

Table of Contents

I. Background and Purpose
    A. Definitions
    B. Overview
II. EPA Responses to Comments
    A. EPA Responses to Written Comments
    1. Baseline Visibility, Natural Visibility and Uniform Rate of 
Progress
    2. Estimating Natural Visibility Conditions
    3. Contribution Assessment According to IMPROVE Monitoring Data
    4. Impact of Fugitive Dust on Visibility Impairment in Hawaii 
Class I Areas
    5. Subject to BART Analysis
    6. BART Determination for Kanoelehua Hill
    7. NOX Reasonable Progress Analysis for the State of 
Hawaii
    8. Reasonable Progress Analysis for SO2 Emissions on 
the Big Island
    9. Point Source SO2 Emissions on Maui
    10. Reasonable Progress Analysis for SO2 Emissions on 
Maui
    11. Agricultural Burning on Maui
    12. Integral Vista Issue and Reasonably Attributable Visibility 
Impairment
    13. Comments on the Monitoring Strategy
    14. Other Comments
    B. Comments From the Public Hearings
III. Summary of EPA Actions
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. Background and Purpose

A. Definitions

    For purposes of this document, we are giving meaning to certain 
words or initials as follows:
    1. The words or initials Act or CAA mean or refer to the Clean Air 
Act.
    2. The initials bext mean or refer to total light 
extinction.
    3. The initials BART mean or refer to Best Available Retrofit 
Technology.
    4. The term Big Island refers to the Island of Hawaii.
    5. The term Class I area refers to a mandatory Class I Federal 
area.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Although states and tribes may designate as Class I 
additional areas which they consider to have visibility as an 
important value, the requirements of the visibility program set 
forth in section 169A of the CAA apply only to ``mandatory Class I 
Federal areas.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    6. The initials DOH refer to the Hawaii Department of Health.
    7. The initials dv mean or refer to deciview(s).
    8. The initials EGU mean or refer to Electric Generating Units.
    9. The words EPA, we, us or our mean or refer to the United States 
Environmental Protection Agency.
    10. The initials FIP mean or refer to Federal Implementation Plan.
    11. The initials FLMs mean or refer to Federal Land Managers.
    12. The words Hawaii and State mean or refer to the State of 
Hawaii.
    13. The initials HECO mean or refer to the Hawaiian Electric 
Company.
    14. The initials HELCO mean or refer to the Hawaii Electric Light 
Company.
    15. The initials IMPROVE mean or refer to Interagency Monitoring of 
Protected Visual Environments monitoring network.
    16. The initials MECO mean or refer to Maui Electric Company.
    17. The initials MW mean or refer to megawatt(s).
    18. The initials NOX mean or refer to nitrogen oxides.
    19. The initials NP mean or refer to National Park.
    20. The initials OC mean or refer to organic carbon.
    21. The initials PM mean or refer to particulate matter.
    22. The initials PM2.5 mean or refer to particulate matter with an 
aerodynamic diameter of less than or equal to 2.5 micrometers (fine 
particulate matter).
    23. The initials PM10 mean or refer to particulate matter with an 
aerodynamic diameter of less than or equal to 10 micrometers (coarse 
particulate matter).
    24. The initials PSD mean or refer to Prevention of Significant 
Deterioration.
    25. The initials RAVI mean or refer to Reasonably Attributable 
Visibility Impairment.
    26. The initials RP mean or refer to Reasonable Progress.
    27. The initials RPG or RPGs mean or refer to Reasonable Progress 
Goal(s).
    28. The initials SIP mean or refer to State Implementation Plan.
    29. The initials SO2 mean or refer to sulfur dioxide.
    30. The initials tpy mean or refer to tons per year.
    31. The initials TSD mean or refer to Technical Support Document.
    32. The initials URP mean or refer to Uniform Rate of Progress.
    33. The initials VOC mean or refer to volatile organic compounds.
    34. The initials WRAP mean or refer to the Western Regional Air 
Partnership.

[[Page 61479]]

B. Overview

    On May 29, 2012, the EPA proposed a FIP to address regional haze in 
the State of Hawaii. We proposed to determine that this FIP would meet 
the requirements of the CAA 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.\2\ A detailed explanation of the requirements for 
regional haze plans and an explanation of EPA's Plan are provided in 
our Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and are not restated here.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Areas designated as mandatory Class I Federal areas consist 
of NPs exceeding 6000 acres, wilderness areas and national memorial 
parks exceeding 5000 acres, and all international parks that were in 
existence on August 7, 1977. 42 U.S.C. 7472(a). In accordance with 
section 169A of the CAA, EPA, in consultation with the Department of 
the Interior, promulgated a list of 156 areas where visibility is 
identified as an important value. 44 FR 69122 (November 30, 1979). 
The extent of a mandatory Class I area includes subsequent changes 
in boundaries, such as park expansions. 42 U.S.C. 7472(a). Although 
states and tribes may designate as Class I additional areas which 
they consider to have visibility as an important value, the 
requirements of the visibility program set forth in section 169A of 
the CAA apply only to ``mandatory Class I Federal areas.'' Each 
mandatory Class I Federal area is the responsibility of a ``Federal 
Land Manager.'' 42 U.S.C. 7602(i). When we use the term ``Class I 
area'' in this action, we mean a ``mandatory Class I Federal area.''
    \3\ See 77 FR 31691 (May 29, 2012).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In our Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, we proposed to find that 
there was only one source in Hawaii that was subject to Best Available 
Retrofit Technology (BART) requirements, the Kanoelehua Hill Generating 
Station (Hill) on the Island of Hawaii (the Big Island). We also 
proposed to find that the current level of pollution control at Hill 
was consistent with BART and no additional controls would be required 
to meet the BART requirement. In addition, the EPA proposed to find 
that sufficient emissions reductions were expected on Maui to make 
reasonable progress during the first implementation period of 2001-
2018. We also proposed to find that additional SO2 
reductions were required on the Big Island to ensure reasonable 
progress. We proposed that those reductions should be derived from 
controlling emissions on three oil-fired power plants on the Big 
Island: Hill, Puna and Shipman. The proposed control measure would cap 
the emissions of these three plants at 3,550 tons of SO2 per 
year beginning in 2018. EPA received several comments during the public 
comment period on our proposal. We have provided summaries of and 
responses to significant comments below. Following consideration of all 
comments, EPA has decided to finalize the Hawaii Regional Haze FIP as 
proposed with one clarification regarding the compliance date for the 
emissions cap. We will work with the Hawaii Department of Health on 
developing future regional haze plans.

II. EPA Responses to Comments

    EPA held two public hearings in Hawaii on May 31 and June 1, 2012 
to accept oral testimony and written comments on the proposal. The 
first meeting was held at Maui College in Kahului on the Island of 
Maui. Twenty people provided oral comments and four provided written 
comments at this hearing. The second hearing was at the Waiakea High 
School in Hilo on the Big Island. Four people provided oral comments at 
this hearing and one provided written comments. Verbatim transcripts of 
the public hearings are available in the public docket for this 
rulemaking, Docket ID No. EPA-R09-OAR-2012-0345, which can be accessed 
through the www.regulations.gov Web site.
    We also received an additional 18 written comments through email, 
postal mail and the rulemaking docket. These comments are also 
available in the public docket for this rulemaking, Docket ID No. EPA-
R09-OAR-2012-0345, which can be accessed through the 
www.regulations.gov Web site.

A. EPA Responses to Written Comments

    EPA received 18 written comments on the proposal. Commenting 
organizations include: Friends of Haleakala National Park (FHNP), 
Alexander and Baldwin, the parent company of Hawaii Commercial and 
Sugar (HC&S), Maui Electric Company (MECO), Hawaii Electric Light 
Company (HELCO), National Park Service (NPS), Maui Tomorrow Foundation 
(Maui Tomorrow), Law office of Marc Chytilo on behalf of Preserve 
Pepe'ekeo Health and Environment and private citizens (Chytilo), Robert 
W. Parsons on behalf of the Office of the Mayor of Maui (Parsons) and 
Earthjustice on behalf of the National Parks Conservation Association, 
Sierra Club, and Blue Planet Foundation (Earthjustice). Seven private 
citizens also submitted comments on the proposal.
1. Baseline Visibility, Natural Visibility and Uniform Rate of Progress
    Comment: Four commenters (Earthjustice, HC&S, HELCO, and MECO) 
believe that EPA's proposed analysis contains a fundamental flaw in 
including the contribution of the Kilauea Volcano in baseline 
visibility conditions, but excluding it from natural visibility 
conditions. The commenters asserted that EPA must revise its analysis 
and the resulting uniform rate of progress (URP) in the final FIP.
    Two of these commenters (HELCO, MECO) stated that EPA's exclusion 
of volcanic emissions from the determination of natural visibility 
conditions is arbitrary and capricious. Another of the commenters 
(Earthjustice) stated that EPA's methods for incorporating volcanic 
emissions into its analysis are internally inconsistent and arbitrary. 
These commenters asserted that while emissions from the volcano vary 
from year to year, there is no reasonable basis for EPA to completely 
exclude them from the estimate of natural conditions.
    According to two of the commenters (HELCO, MECO), EPA has expressed 
the opinion that Kilauea could stop erupting at any time and that 
natural visibility conditions in 2064 might not include emissions from 
the volcano. In the view of the commenters, this does not justify EPA's 
use of the default conditions developed by the Western Regional Air 
Partnership (WRAP) for western states in the continental United States 
to determine requirements for Hawaii; rather, it displays a fundamental 
misunderstanding of Kilauea's emissions profile. Based on a report 
attached to the comments, the commenters asserted that significant 
SO2 emissions would continue venting from the volcano even 
if it were to stop erupting immediately because, although 
SO2 output is greatest during eruptive events, Kilauea emits 
SO2 at all times, even during non-eruptive periods. The 
commenters contend that a substantial amount of data on Kilauea's 
emissions has been collected, and EPA should, at a minimum, use 
existing data to develop a ``non-eruptive'' emissions profile. The 
commenters stated that like particulate emissions from fire, 
SO2 emissions from Kilauea are naturally occurring and would 
continue to occur in the absence of human activities. Accordingly, the 
commenters asserted that EPA cannot simply ignore emissions from 
Kilauea.
    These commenters (HELCO, MECO) stated that by including emissions 
from Kilauea in baseline visibility conditions but excluding them from 
natural visibility conditions, EPA has created an ``apples to oranges 
comparison'' that artificially inflates the amount of manmade emissions 
reductions necessary in Hawaii. As a result, the commenters asserted, 
the proposed FIP would establish reasonable progress goals that would 
be impossible to achieve through the reduction of

[[Page 61480]]

anthropogenic emissions, which is inconsistent with EPA's own guidance. 
The commenters conclude that EPA must revise its analysis and the URP 
based on a proper evaluation of volcanic emissions and EPA's failure to 
appropriately evaluate volcanic emissions is arbitrary and capricious 
and must be addressed in the final FIP. However, the commenters 
recognized that EPA may opt not to revise its reasonable progress 
analysis in this way during this planning period. In that event, the 
commenters requested that EPA commit to addressing Kilauea's emissions 
in the next planning period because continuing to exclude these 
emissions that are the dominant cause of visibility impairment would 
create untenable results--increasingly expensive controls in successive 
planning periods that would not result in perceptible improvements in 
visibility.
    Another commenter (Earthjustice) stated that the goal of the haze 
program is to eliminate visibility impairment ``from manmade air 
pollution'' [citing 42 U.S.C. 7491(a)(1)]. According to the commenter, 
failing to include the volcano in natural conditions distorts the 
analysis of the impacts from human sources and the corresponding BART 
controls and reasonable progress goals to achieve natural visibility 
conditions. The commenter asserted that based on this ``skewed 
analysis,'' EPA summarily eliminated any controls for NOX 
for the BART analysis and reasonable progress goals. The commenter 
contended that EPA avoided evaluating the actual URP for anthropogenic 
SO2 pollution; instead, rejecting a URP inflated by volcano 
impacts (which the commenter termed a ``strawman of EPA's own 
making''), then proposing arbitrary progress goals of its own choosing. 
The commenter indicated that EPA's approach toward volcano conditions 
is unjustified and prevents the Agency from providing a rational and 
transparent justification for its pollution control determinations. 
According to the commenter, this approach also deprives the public of 
proper notice and opportunity to comment; in the commenter's view, EPA 
must rationally review and address impacts from human sources unskewed 
by volcano impacts and allow the public a meaningful opportunity to 
review and comment on such determinations.
    The fourth commenter (HC&S) pointed out that under EPA's 
methodology, the URP incorporates reductions in visibility impairment 
that are sufficient to offset both the portion of baseline impairment 
that comes from anthropogenic emissions and the portion that is caused 
by the volcano. The commenter believes that to make a more accurate 
assessment of the reduction in emissions from anthropogenic sources 
necessary to achieve natural visibility conditions, emissions from 
Kilauea either need to be included in, or excluded from, both the 
estimate of baseline visibility conditions and the estimate of natural 
visibility conditions. The commenter recommended that EPA adopt the 
Hawaii DOH's proposed method to adjust the baseline visibility 
impairment to account for the impacts of volcano emissions as well as 
for the impacts of Asian dust. According to the commenter, under this 
approach, the URP target for 2018 would be 0.32 deciviews (dv), which 
is only slightly greater than what would be achieved through the 
proposed FIP.
    Response: The central concern of these comments appears to be that 
the approach EPA used to determine the uniform rate of progress (URP), 
in particular how we considered volcanic emissions, led to 
inappropriate regulatory decisions in the proposal and/or may lead to 
inappropriate regulatory decisions in the future. EPA disagrees with 
this concern. The commenters mistakenly conclude that the URP sets a 
target or goal for the first planning period. In fact, the development 
of the URP is an analytical exercise that is intended to inform the 
setting of reasonable progress goals (RPGs) rather than a standard or 
presumptive target for the plan to meet.
    In establishing RPGs, the states and EPA must ``consider'' both the 
URP and the emission reduction measures needed to achieve the URP.\4\ 
More specifically, EPA has recommended that states use the following 
approach in setting their RPGs:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ In addition, as noted in our proposal, CAA section 169A and 
the RHR at 40 CFR 51.308(d)(1)(i)(A) require consideration of the 
following four factors in determining ``reasonable progress'': (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 weighing of these four factors is sometimes referred to 
as a ``four-factor analysis'' to distinguish it from the ``five-
factor analysis'' for BART determinations. Comments concerning the 
URP and related issues are addressed in this section. Other comments 
on our RP analysis are addressed below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    1. Establish baseline and natural visibility conditions.
    2. Determine the URP (i.e., a straight line between baseline 
visibility in 2000-2004 for the worst 20 percent days and projected 
natural conditions for the worst 20 percent days in 2064).
    3. Identify and analyze the measures aimed at achieving the URP.
    a. Identify the key pollutants and sources and/or source categories 
that are contributing to visibility impairment at each Class I area.
    b. Identify the control measures and associated emission reductions 
that are expected to result from compliance with existing rules and 
other available measures for the sources and source categories that 
contribute significantly to visibility impairment.
    c. Determine what additional control measures would be reasonable 
based on the statutory factors and other relevant factors for the 
sources and/or source categories identified.
    d. Estimate through the use of air quality models the improvement 
in visibility that would result from implementation of the control 
measures found to be reasonable and compare this to the URP.
    4. Establish an RPG.
    In this case, the commenters' concerns relate primarily to how EPA 
performed step 1 of this analysis. Specifically, the commenters object 
to EPA's inclusion of volcanic emissions in the baseline and exclusion 
of volcanic emissions in our estimate of natural conditions. EPA 
acknowledges the commenters' concerns, but does not agree that our 
approach is arbitrary or unjustified in this case. Rather, we have 
followed the statutory and regulatory requirements for Reasonable 
Progress analyses, while also accounting for unique circumstances in 
Hawaii that severely limit the utility of the URP as an analytical tool 
for setting RPGs for the state's Class I areas.
    Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.308(d)(2), baseline visibility conditions 
must be calculated using actual monitoring data from 2000-2004. 
Therefore, the baseline conditions for Class I areas in Hawaii 
necessarily include volcanic emissions. It is difficult to include 
volcanic emissions as part of natural background visibility in 2064 
because of the extreme variability in volcanic emissions from year to 
year. In this case, a 2064 projection would be little better than a 
guess. Therefore, in estimating natural conditions for purposes of this 
first planning period, we have not attempted to forecast the future 
contribution of the volcano to natural background visibility. Even if 
we could quantitatively estimate ``natural'' volcanic emissions and air 
quality effects in 2064 with any accuracy, the URP would be of very 
limited value in setting RPGs for Hawaii.
    As explained in EPA's Reasonable Progress Guidance, the URP is 
intended to serve as a gauge against which to measure the improvement 
in visibility conditions that is projected to result

[[Page 61481]]

from implementation of reasonable control measures during the first 
planning period which ends in 2018.\5\ However, the variability of 
volcanic emissions from Kilauea renders this type of analysis unhelpful 
for Hawaii's Class I areas. To understand why this is the case, it 
helps to look at Figure II.B-6 in EPA's technical support document 
(TSD). This figure shows the URP calculation for Hawaii Volcanoes 
National Park (NP). The points on the left side of the figure are the 
actual, measured visibility impairment at Hawaii Volcanoes for the past 
several years; these measurements vary by at least 13 dv, as compared 
to the difference between baseline conditions and natural conditions of 
11.7 dv. This dramatic variation in visibility impairment on the worst 
20 percent days is driven by the extreme variability of the volcanic 
emissions, which dominate visibility impairment on those days. Thus, 
the only way EPA could accurately estimate the improvement in 
visibility on the worst 20 percent days by 2018 is if we could 
accurately predict volcanic emissions on those days. In the absence of 
an accurate projection of volcanic emissions for 2018, there is no 
reasonable estimate of visibility conditions in 2018 to compare with 
the URP. Therefore, EPA has used a different method of gauging 
reasonable progress for this first planning period, as explained in 
Section F of the proposal, ``Reasonable Progress Goals for Hawaii.'' 
\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See Section 1-7 of ``Guidance for Tracking Progress Under 
the Regional Haze Rule'', Document No. EPA-R09-OAR-2012-0345-0003-
B10.
    \6\ 77 FR 31707, May 29, 2012
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    However, given the dominance of volcanic emissions on the worst 20 
percent days in Hawaii, it may be appropriate for future plans to focus 
on other days when the proportion of anthropogenic contribution to 
visibility impairment is larger. We expect that the State of Hawaii 
will develop future regional haze plans, consistent with the CAA and 
EPA's implementing regulations. We plan to work with the State of 
Hawaii on those future plans and we will consider different approaches 
to gauging reasonable progress, and different approaches to determining 
the URP.
2. Estimating Natural Visibility Conditions
    Comment: One commenter (NPS) noted that emissions from the Kilauea 
Volcano vary from year to year, making it difficult to project future 
emissions levels or the specific contribution of these emissions to 
visibility impairment in 2018 or 2064. For clarity, the commenter 
recommended that EPA revise the conclusion in section III.B.1 of the 
preamble to the proposed FIP (77 FR 31699, May 29, 2012) to read ``* * 
* in estimating natural conditions for purposes of this first planning 
period, we have not tried to forecast the future contribution of the 
volcano to natural background visibility'' rather than stating an 
assumption that there will be no visibility impact from the volcano.
    Response: The NPS is correct in saying that EPA did not attempt to 
forecast the future contribution of the volcano to natural background 
visibility. However, since the default natural conditions do not 
include volcanic emissions, we implicitly assumed that there would be 
no visibility impact from the volcano in our URP analysis. EPA does not 
consider this implicit assumption to be problematic because the URP 
analysis is not useful in the case of Hawaii due to the infeasibility 
of accurately accounting for volcanic emissions in the 2018 projections 
(see Section II.A.1. of this notice).
    We would consider a refined estimate of natural conditions at these 
Class I areas if the State of Hawaii were to propose such a change as 
part of the next Regional Haze plan for Hawaii. Any such estimate would 
need to be consistent with our guidance on this subject.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See ``Guidance for Estimating Natural Visibility Conditions 
under the Regional Haze Rule'' Document No. EPA-R09-OAR-2012-0345-
0003-B9.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. Contribution Assessment According to IMPROVE Monitoring Data
    Comment: One commenter (NPS) generally agreed with EPA's assessment 
of contributions to visibility impairment.
    Response: EPA appreciates NPS' support of our contribution 
assessment, given their extensive expertise in this subject.
4. Impact of Fugitive Dust on Visibility Impairment in Hawaii Class I 
Areas
    Comment: One commenter (Parsons) stated that EPA is incorrect in 
stating that there are no impacts or degradations in visibility to 
Haleakala NP as a result of fugitive dust. According to the commenter, 
EPA did not examine the impacts of particulate matter carried into the 
atmosphere from Maui's agricultural fields, which affects air quality 
on many days. The commenter asserted that Maui is subjected to strong 
trade winds on many days, and plantation practices of clearing and 
tilling hundreds of acres at a time means that tons of windborne 
topsoil are lost each year. The commenter believes that best management 
practices might help mitigate this loss, and preserve Maui's air 
quality, but plantations are exempt from the sort of requirements that 
would be applied to other land-altering activities, such as 
construction site grading. The commenter suggested that EPA may be able 
to work with the Hawaii Department of Agriculture and DOH to revise 
standards for dust control in order to protect the health and welfare 
of the community and near-shore coral reef ecosystems, and to help 
mitigate impacts that contribute to regional haze.
    Two commenters similarly asserted that fugitive dust from the 
sugarcane fields affects the haze in Haleakala NP and is killing Maui's 
coral reefs. The commenter indicated that after harvest, the cane 
fields are left bare and the loose topsoil is picked up by the trade 
winds and carried across the island, coating everything in its path and 
eventually settling on and killing the coral reefs south of Maui.
    Response: EPA disagrees with the commenter's assertion that we did 
not consider the impact of dust from agricultural activities when 
evaluating causes of haze at Hawaii's national parks. Dust from 
agricultural activities and other sources is measured at the IMPROVE 
monitors as coarse mass and soil. Section II.A.3. of the TSD discusses 
causes of haze at Haleakala NP. Section II.B.3 discusses the causes of 
haze at Hawaii Volcanoes NP. Both of these sections of the TSD address 
the contribution of coarse mass and soil to visibility impairment on 
the best and worst days. Coarse mass contributes about 9 percent to 
visibility impairment on the worst 20 percent days at Haleakala.\8\ The 
source of the coarse mass measured at the IMPROVE site is unclear. It 
could be dust from the low elevations transported up to the park, or it 
could be from nearby sources such as unpaved roads.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See ``Technical Support Document for the Proposed Action on 
the Federal Implementation Plan for the Regional Haze Program in the 
State of Hawaii, Air Division, U.S. EPA Region 9'', [hereinafter 
TSD] p. 12, Document No. EPA-R09-OAR-2012-0345-0003-A3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA shares the commenters' concerns about the impact of dust 
emissions on public health, the loss of topsoil and possible impacts to 
water quality and marine life. However, in the context of this 
rulemaking, EPA does not consider it reasonable to require additional 
pollution control without clear evidence that the dust is causing or 
contributing to haze at the Class I area. Further analysis of the 
source of this coarse

[[Page 61482]]

mass should be conducted as part of the reasonable progress review for 
the next planning period.
5. Subject to BART Analysis
    Comment 1: Agreement with analysis to identify sources subject to 
BART.
    Three commenters (HC&S, HELCO, and MECO) agreed with EPA's analysis 
to determine which sources should be subject to BART requirements. 
Their comments are summarized in the following paragraphs.
    Two of the commenters (HELCO, MECO) noted that CAA section 
169A(b)(2)(A) requires the relevant regulatory agency to review a 
state's BART eligible sources and determine whether they emit ``any air 
pollutant which may reasonably be anticipated to cause or contribute to 
any impairment of visibility in [a Class I] area.'' These commenters 
cited the BART Guidelines (70 FR 39109, July 6, 2005) to add that if a 
source does not meet this threshold, it may be exempt from further BART 
review. Based on these principles, the commenters believe that EPA's 
analysis of which sources in Hawaii should be subject to BART is sound 
and consistent with the BART Guidelines, and they urged EPA to retain 
it for the final FIP.
    These two commenters stated that the BART Guidelines provide 
regulatory agencies with three options for making a ``cause or 
contribute'' finding and that EPA reasonably chose to use an 
``individual source attribution approach'' and a threshold of 0.5 dv in 
this case. According to the commenters, the BART Guidelines explain 
that the appropriate contribution threshold depends on the number and 
proximity of sources affecting a Class I area, and a threshold lower 
than 0.5 dv is justified where there are a large number of BART-
eligible sources within the state and in proximity to a Class I area. 
The commenters added that in Hawaii there are few BART-eligible sources 
and they are not concentrated near a single Class I area. On this 
basis, one of the commenters (MECO) explicitly expressed agreement that 
0.5 dv is the appropriate threshold.
    These two commenters went on to note that, consistent with the BART 
Guidelines, EPA applied the 0.5 dv contribution threshold to the 
results of computer modeling that was used to predict visibility 
impacts from each BART-eligible source in Hawaii, with the result that 
six of the eight BART-eligible sources fell below the 0.5 dv 
contribution threshold.\9\ The commenters agreed that EPA appropriately 
determined that only HELCO's Kanoelehua Hill Generating Station is 
subject to BART and exempted all other BART-eligible sources in Hawaii 
from further BART review. One of the commenters (HELCO) specifically 
stated that this analysis correctly excluded Hawaiian Electric 
Company's (HECO's) Waiau and Kahe facilities, and the other (MECO) 
stated that MECO's Kahului facility was appropriately excluded.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ Six of the eight BART-eligible sources had a less than 0.5 
deciview impact and so were exempted from BART. One of the remaining 
facilities, Hu Honua Bioenergy is no longer permitted to burn fossil 
fuels and is therefore also exempt from BART. This leaves one 
facility in Hawaii as subject to BART, the Kaneolehua Hill facility. 
See 77 FR 31704, 31705.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The third commenter (HC&S) also agreed with the proposed threshold 
(0.5 dv) used to assess whether the impact of a single source 
contributes to visibility impairment at the Hawaiian Class I areas. 
This commenter pointed out that of the six sources in Hawaii exempted 
from BART because their modeled impact is below 0.5 dv, none has a 
modeled impact of as much as half of this threshold level. The 
commenter also stated that the combined impact from all six sources is 
0.715 dv at Haleakala NP, which is lower than the level (1.0 dv) at 
which the BART Guidelines consider a single source to ``cause'' 
visibility impairment. The commenter added that while this combined 
impact is somewhat higher than the proposed 0.5 dv contribution 
threshold, the BART Guidelines explicitly caution that visibility 
effects of multiple sources should not be aggregated and their 
collective effects compared against the contribution threshold, because 
this would inappropriately create a ``contribution to contribution'' 
test. The commenter concluded that it is therefore reasonable to 
conclude that these six sources do not cause or contribute to 
visibility impairment at Haleakala NP. The commenter also asserted that 
since the combined visibility impact of these six sources at the Hawaii 
Volcanoes NP totals 0.35 dv, it is reasonable to conclude that these 
sources do not cause or contribute to visibility impairment at Hawaii 
Volcanoes NP. The commenter noted that setting the contribution 
threshold at 0.5 dv for sources subject to BART will capture those 
BART-eligible sources responsible for more than half of the visibility 
impacts at Haleakala NP and nearly 90 percent of the visibility impacts 
at Hawaii Volcanoes NP while still excluding other sources with very 
small impacts. The commenter believes that given the relatively small 
number of BART-eligible sources potentially impacting Class I areas in 
Hawaii and the magnitude of both the individual sources' impacts and 
the combined impact from all sources proposed to be exempt from BART, 
the proposed 0.5 dv threshold for determining whether a single source 
contributes to visibility impairment is wholly consistent with the BART 
Guidelines and is therefore an appropriate threshold for use in the 
Hawaii FIP.
    Response 1: EPA agrees that the determination of sources subject to 
BART was conducted appropriately and in accordance with the applicable 
regulatory requirements and guidance. EPA also agrees that the 0.5 dv 
threshold is appropriate for Hawaii.
    Comment 2: Disagreement with part of the analysis.
    Two commenters (FHNP, Parsons) disagreed with some aspects of EPA's 
analysis to determine which sources should be subject to BART 
requirements.
    One commenter (FHNP) suggested that the MECO Kahului and HECO Kahe 
facilities should not be exempted from BART analysis. The commenter 
noted that EPA used a modeled increase of 0.5 dv at the Haleakala 
IMPROVE monitoring site (HALE) to identify candidates for BART 
analysis, and that the measured concentrations of pollutants taken at 
the Haleakala Crater monitoring site (HACR) are approximately half of 
those measured at HALE. According to the commenter, it is expected that 
the point sources analyzed in this report would contribute similar 
densities of non-anthropologic elements at both the HALE and the HACR 
sites (with the exception of some smoke sources) and that, hence, a 
point source modeled to produce a 0.25 dv change at HALE would be 
expected to produce an approximate 0.5 dv change at HACR in the Class I 
area. The commenter pointed out that the MECO Kahului site and the HECO 
Kahe site were modeled to produce changes of 0.232 dv and 0.221 dv, 
respectively, at HALE. The commenter believes that extrapolating these 
contributions to the HACR site suggests that these sources are very 
close to contributing 0.5 dv in the Class I area. The commenter 
concluded that since actions recommended in the report are projected to 
produce less than the target rate of progress, the MECO Kahului and 
HECO Kahe sites should not be exempted from BART analysis.
    The second commenter (Parsons) objected to EPA's omission of the 
Kahului facility from BART requirements. The commenter stated that air 
emissions from MECO's Maalaea

[[Page 61483]]

and Kahului facilities rank them as the fifth and seventh worst 
polluters in Hawaii. The commenter noted that EPA has not proposed 
additional pollution controls at either facility. According to the 
commenter, at the public hearing on May 31, 2012, EPA stated the belief 
that the Kahului facility will cease operations by 2018. The commenter 
asserted that this is conjectural and indicated that it would be 
prudent to apply more stringent pollution control standards to this 
facility, especially in the short term.
    Response 2: We do not agree that the Kahului or Kahe facilities 
should be subject to BART.
    As an initial matter, we would like to clarify that the modeling 
upon which we have based our subject-to-BART determinations did not use 
either the Haleakala (HALE) IMPROVE monitoring site or the Haleakala 
Crater (HACR) site as a receptor.\10\ Rather the subject-to-BART 
modeling predicted visibility impacts at gridded receptor locations 
spaced approximately one kilometer apart within the Class I area 
domain.\11\ Therefore, the modeled impacts cited by the commenter (i.e. 
0.232 dv for Kahului and 0.221 dv for Kahe) represent the 8th highest 
delta-deciview values for the year modeled (2005) from all modeled 
receptors at Halekala National Park and do not reflect modeled impacts 
at either HALE or HACR.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See ``Subject-to-Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART) 
Modeling for the State of Hawaii, Application of the CALPUFF 
Modeling System; Prepared for: Hawaii State Department of Health, 
Environmental Management Division Clean Air Branch by Alpine 
Geophysics, LLC (March 3, 2010)'', Document No. EPA-R09-OAR-2012-
0345-0006-C3d.
    \11\ Id. Section 3.2.4. These receptor locations were provided 
by the National Park Service and are available at http://www2.nature.nps.gov/air/Maps/Receptors/index.cfm.
    \12\ The Hawaii BART/RP Supplemental Modeling Results Report 
does include modeling results at individual receptors placed at the 
location of the Haleakala (HALE) IMPROVE monitoring site and 
Haleakala Crater (HACR) site. See Hawaii BART/RP Supplemental 
Modeling Results, Alpine Geophysics (March 29, 2010), (Document No. 
EPA-R09-OAR-2012-0345-0011-Attachment 1) Table 12. The predicted 
visibility impacts from the Kahului and Kahe BART-eligible sources 
at the HALE and HACR receptors were similar to predicted visibility 
impacts at the NPS receptors, and were below the 0.5 deciview 
threshold for all receptors. Specifically, the modeled 98th 
percentile delta deciview impact from the BART-eligible units at 
Kahului was 0.227 at HALE and 0.247 at HACR. Id. Table 15. The 
modeled 98th percentile delta deciview impact from BART-eligible 
units at Kahe was 0.262 at HALE and 0.255 at HACR. Id. Table 15. 
Therefore, even if we had used HACR as a receptor for purposes of 
subject-to-BART modeling, neither the Kahe nor the Kahului facility 
would have been found to be subject-to-BART.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To the extent that the commenter is arguing that the subject-to-
BART modeling should have used background conditions for HACR rather 
than HALE, we also disagree. Consistent with the BART Guidelines, the 
subject-to-BART modeling for Hawaii was performed against natural 
visibility conditions.\13\ Natural conditions have not yet been 
established for the HACR site. Therefore, EPA reasonably relied on the 
available information regarding natural conditions at the HALE site for 
purposes of conducting subject-to-BART monitoring.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ Specifically the modeling was performed against natural 
visibility baseline conditions for the best 20% of days. Use of 
either the best 20% days or average natural conditions is 
permissible under the BART Guidelines. See Memo from Joseph W. 
Paisie regarding Regional Haze Regulations and Guidelines for BART 
(July 19, 2006) (Document No. EPA-R09-OAR-2012-0345-0003-B15). 
However, use of the 20% best days is more conservative (i.e., it 
tends to increase the baseline impacts for a given source).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With respect to measured pollutant concentrations, the commenter 
(FHNP) correctly notes that the values of the measured concentration of 
pollutants taken at the HACR site are smaller than those measured at 
the HALE site (i.e., the HACR site is ``cleaner''). The commenter 
suggests that, therefore, a point source modeled to produce a 0.25 dv 
change at HALE would be expected to produce an approximate 0.5 dv 
change at HACR, and hence a 0.5 dv change in the Class 1 area. However, 
as noted by the commenter, doubling the source impact is a rough 
approximation of the effect of reducing the background light extinction 
by half. The effect of reducing the background extinction by half on 
the change in deciviews (delta dv) varies depending on the source 
extinction bext (source) and the background extinction, 
bext (bkg), but would be smaller than doubling the source 
impact. Therefore, the rough approximation proposed by the commenter 
(doubling the source impact) to estimate the potential change in 
visibility impacts from the facilities from using the new HACR site to 
calculate background light extinction would not be appropriate.\14\ So, 
even if natural conditions for the HACR site had been available, we do 
not expect that the impact of the sources would approximate 0.5 dv. EPA 
therefore disagrees that these sources should be subject-to-BART. 
Nonetheless, because Kahului and Kahe are both significant sources of 
pollution and include non-BART-eligible units as well as BART-eligible 
units, they may be appropriate candidates for controls as part of 
future Regional Haze plans.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ EPA does not believe doubling the source impact is 
appropriate. However, EPA notes that doubling the source impact of 
0.23 deciviews and 0.22 deciviews would result in values below the 
0.5 dv threshold.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We also disagree with the commenter that the URP is relevant to 
whether Kahului and Kahe are subject to BART. Under the Regional Haze 
Rule (RHR), the determination of which sources are subject-to-BART is a 
separate analysis from the calculation of the URP and the setting of 
RPGs.\15\ Moreover, as discussed in Section II.A.1 of this document, 
the URP is not a target and is particularly poorly suited for 
regulatory decisions in Hawaii.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ Compare 40 CFR 51.308(d)(1) and 51.308(e).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regarding the comments from Parsons, EPA agrees that the electric 
power plants Maalaea and Kahului are relatively large sources of 
pollution. However, as noted above, the modeled 98th percentile 
visibility impact of the BART-eligible Kahului source is 0.23 dv, less 
than one-half of the 0.5 dv subject-to-BART threshold. Due to the age 
of its equipment, the Maalaea power plant does not have BART-eligible 
units and therefore is not subject-to-BART.
    EPA disagrees that we represented at the hearing in Maui that the 
Kahului Power Plant would no longer be operating in 2018. That 
assertion is not supported by the transcript.\16\ Regardless, we did 
not base our decision on BART for the Kahului plant on future 
operation, but instead based it on the current emissions level for the 
facility.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ See transcript of Kahului hearing, Document No. EPA-R09-
OAR-2012-0345-0022.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comment 3: Puunene Mill.
    One commenter (HC&S) stated that the small contribution to 
visibility impairment from the Puunene Mill warrants a determination 
that the facility should not be subject to BART. While conceding that 
it was reasonable to use maximum actual 24-hour emissions to model 
worst-case visibility impacts, the commenter indicated that typical 
visibility impacts from the Puunene Mill are likely to be lower than 
the modeled results. The commenter noted that even so, modeling results 
for both coal and bagasse firing showed that the impact of the facility 
was well below the 0.5 dv contribution threshold at both Haleakala NP 
and Hawaii Volcanoes NP, at both the maximum 24-hour 98th percentile 
impact and the highest modeled impact. According to the commenter, the 
highest modeled impact for the facility (i.e., during coal firing) was 
less than half the contribution threshold at Haleakala NP and less than 
20 percent of the threshold at Hawaii Volcanoes NP. The commenter added 
that modeling of the combined impacts of both BART-eligible (Boiler 3) 
and Reasonable Progress-eligible (Boilers 1

[[Page 61484]]

and 2) sources at the Puunene Mill demonstrated that the maximum 24-
hour 98th percentile visibility impacts from the facility during both 
bagasse firing and coal firing scenarios are well below the 0.5 dv 
contribution threshold. The commenter believes that the modeling 
analysis clearly shows that even worst-case emissions from the Puunene 
Mill do not cause or contribute to visibility impairment at either 
Haleakala NP or Hawaii Volcanoes NP, and that additional controls are 
therefore not warranted.
    In contrast, one commenter (Parsons) believes that with regard to 
the Hawaii Regional Haze FIP and for public health concerns, air 
emissions at HC&S's Puunene Mill should be subjected to BART 
determinations, Maximum Achievable Control Technology (MACT) Hammer 
standards and both continuous opacity monitoring systems (COMS) and 
continuous emissions monitoring systems (CEMS) guidelines. The 
commenter stated that the Puunene Mill is the second worst polluter in 
Hawaii with regard to air emissions. The commenter indicated that 
Boilers 1 and 2 at the facility predate the Act, and thus have been 
exempt from those standards for decades. The commenter also contended 
that EPA's ``revised MACT Hammer provisions'' have not been applied to 
these units because HC&S and sugar growers in Florida and Texas 
submitted a report replacing these emission limits with their own 
subcategory of bagasse-fired boilers. The commenter added that HC&S 
combusts 100,000 tons of coal annually without emission standards that 
apply to other coal-burning facilities. The commenter also stated that 
Boiler 3 at the facility has not been held to Federal standards 
required for COMS and CEMS or regulatory oversight by the Hawaii DOH.
    Two other commenters also stated that EPA should include all of the 
HC&S smoke stacks in its review. In particular, the commenter asked 
that EPA review and closely monitor the electric power production 
emissions on the Puunene Mill.
    Response 3: We reaffirm that the Puunene Mill is not subject-to-
BART. In accordance with the BART Guidelines, the subject-to-BART 
modeling for Puunene Mill was performed using worst-case emissions from 
the Mill and best-case visibility (under natural conditions) at the 
parks.\17\ This analysis assumed the Mill was powered entirely by coal, 
its most polluting fuel, for 24 hours. That worst-case 24-hour emission 
rate was then compared to the clearest days at Haleakala NP and Hawaii 
Volcanoes NP. This comparison of very high emissions at the Puunene 
Mill to very clean conditions at the park was modeled for every weather 
condition during the 365 days of the year. The resulting visibility 
impact was less than the 0.5 dv threshold that would make the facility 
subject to BART.\18\ EPA reviewed this analysis and concurs with the 
results.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ See Section 2.4 of ``Subject-to-Best Available Retrofit 
Technology (BART) Modeling for the State of Hawaii, Application of 
the CALPUFF Modeling System; Prepared for: Hawaii State Department 
of Health, Environmental Management Division Clean Air Branch by 
Alpine Geophysics, LLC (March 3, 2010)'', Document No. EPA-R09-OAR-
2012-0345-0006-C3d.
    \18\ Id. Table 6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The commenter indicates that he believes the Mill should be subject 
to Federal guidelines for CEMS and COMS. We are confident that the 
methods used to calculate worst-case emissions are appropriate and 
conservative. Therefore, the absence of continuous monitors does not 
weaken the analysis.
    The commenter also indicates that he believes the Puunene Mill 
should be subject to MACT controls. The applicability of MACT is 
outside the scope of this rulemaking.
    Comment 4: Hu Honua and Tradewinds should be subject to BART 
controls.
    One commenter (Chytilo) objected to the exclusion of the Hu Honua 
Bioenergy Facility and the Tradewinds Veneer Mill and Cogeneration 
Facility's electric generating EGUs from the proposed FIP. The 
commenter argued that these facilities should be subjected to BART 
controls and emissions limits. The commenter stated that even though 
neither source was operating during the baseline period, the emissions 
from each source are significant and will interfere with progress 
towards national visibility objectives.
    The commenter also asserted that EPA improperly exempted these 
sources from controls, reporting and reasonable further progress based 
on what the commenter believes is the irrelevant and incorrect belief 
that each source is entirely biofueled. The commenter stated that 
emissions controls will be less successful for these facilities because 
steady state operations are more difficult to achieve and the operators 
contemplate diurnal fuel source changes and other operational shifts 
daily. The commenter added that biofueled sources still cause 
visibility impairment, and alleged that the FIP rulemaking offers no 
explanation for why biofueled sources should be exempted from haze 
controls. The commenter indicated that the two facilities are permitted 
to burn wood waste which, according to the commenter, is a variable 
fuel that actually produces increased emissions and should be subject 
to enhanced controls. The commenter believes that haze objectives 
cannot be met if these sources are exempted.
    The commenter made the following additional points related to the 
Hu Honua facility:
     The emissions calculations for the Hu Honua facility are 
questionable. The commenter expressed agreement with EPA's comments on 
the facility's Covered Source Permit (Hawaii's term for a title V 
permit), which the commenter characterized as saying that unrealistic 
emissions factors were used and actual plant emissions are likely to be 
considerably higher.
     The facility's permit allows the use of conventional 
diesel fuel during startup and off-peak periods, so any exemption for 
biofuels is not warranted.
     Sulfur oxides (SOX) emissions are not 
insignificant. The commenter asserted that SOX emissions 
from the facility ``constitute nearly 93 percent of the * * * NAAQS,'' 
and that EPA's rationale that these emissions may be ignored due to 
background volcanic emissions is misplaced. The commenter stated that 
the Pepe'ekeo area is only affected by volcanic emissions during 
certain wind conditions, and during other periods the facility's 
SOX and other visibility-impairing emissions will be 
significant and should not be exempted.
    Response 4: The definition of BART-eligible facility may be found 
in 40 CFR 51.301. It provides a list of types of facilities that may be 
eligible for BART if they were built between 1962 and 1977. These types 
of facilities include ``fossil-fuel fired steam electric plants of more 
than 250 million British thermal units per hour heat input.'' When Hu 
Honua converted to biofuels, it was no longer ``fossil-fuel fired'' and 
therefore was no longer BART-eligible. The permit for this facility 
allows for it to be fueled by wood or biodiesel. Neither of these is a 
``fossil fuel.'' Therefore, the facility is not eligible for BART. The 
Tradewinds Veneer cogeneration facility was not built between 1962 and 
1977 and does not burn fossil fuels. Therefore, this facility is also 
not eligible for BART.
    We note that the commenter's general concern about emissions from 
new large facilities possibly interfering with visibility goals is a 
common consideration in air quality planning and is not limited to 
these two facilities. Such emissions are regulated in large part under 
the CAA's Prevention of

[[Page 61485]]

Significant Deterioration (PSD) permitting program, which applies to 
new major sources and major modifications at existing sources for 
pollutants where the area in which the source is located has been 
designated attainment or unclassifiable with one or more of the NAAQS. 
Among other requirements, PSD review requires an air quality analysis, 
using dispersion modeling, of ambient concentrations that would result 
from the applicant's proposed project. The PSD regulations provide 
special protection of Air Quality Related Values, including visibility, 
in Class I areas, including oversight by and coordination between the 
permitting authority and the Federal land managers (FLMs). The RH rule 
also requires reviews of plans every 5 years and complete new regional 
haze plans every 10 years. The 5-year update of this plan will include 
a verification that emission trends on the Islands are consistent with 
reasonable progress and an analysis of whether anthropogenic visibility 
impairment is decreasing The next full plan, required in 10 years, will 
include a new reasonable progress analysis that would take into account 
these and any other new sources of pollution.
6. BART Determination for Kanoelehua Hill
    Comment 1: General comments on BART for Hill.
    One commenter (Earthjustice) stated that EPA's proposal to exempt 
the Hill facility from any BART controls neither meets the requirements 
of the BART program, nor promotes necessary visibility improvements at 
Hawaii's Class I areas. The commenter pointed out that even though EPA 
has stated that this facility is by far the largest source of 
anthropogenic SO2 emissions on the Big Island (citing 77 FR 
31706), no BART control is required. The commenter believes that this 
result lacks a reasoned and lawful justification. The commenter 
asserted that EPA must require demonstrably cost-effective controls, 
rather than readily relieving polluters of these obligations. The 
specific arguments made by the commenter related to nitrogen oxides 
(NOX) and SO2 are detailed in the following 
subsections.
    In contrast, another commenter (HELCO) agreed that EPA 
appropriately determined that BART controls are not justified for the 
Hill facility. The commenter noted that EPA's analysis of the five 
statutory factors that must be considered in establishing BART was 
based largely on an analysis performed by a consultant for HELCO (``the 
Trinity BART report'' \19\) which, according to the commenter, was 
consistent with the BART Guidelines even though the guidelines are not 
mandatory for a facility the size of the Hill facility. However, 
because the BART Guidelines were designed for power plants, the 
commenter believes they are both an apt and a conservative guide in 
this instance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ See ``BART Five-Factor Analysis Prepared for Hawaiian 
Electric Light Company, Trinity Consultants'' (April 12, 2010), 
Document No. EPA-R09-OAR-2012-0345-0010-attachment 3, [hereinafter 
``Trinity BART Report''].
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Response 1: EPA disagrees with Earthjustice's comments with respect 
to our BART determination for the Hill facility. The EPA BART 
determination is appropriate for Hill for reasons detailed below. And, 
it is important to note that we are requiring SO2 reductions 
from Hill and two other plants on the Big Island in order to ensure 
reasonable progress toward eliminating anthropogenic visibility 
impairment at Hawaii Volcanoes NP. EPA agrees with HELCO's comment that 
the BART analysis conducted by Trinity for HELCO was consistent with 
the BART guidelines, although EPA does not agree with the company's 
cost estimates for lower sulfur fuels.
    Comment 2: HELCO's comments on particulate matter (PM) and NOX.
    One commenter (HELCO) agreed with EPA's determination that the Hill 
facility should not install NOX or PM BART. The commenter 
stated that the Trinity BART report evaluated the available control 
technologies and that EPA, based on that report, found that the 
controls considered for PM would not be cost effective and that the 
controls considered for NOX would not provide a measurable 
visibility benefit at Haleakala NP or Hawaii Volcanoes NP. Given what 
the commenter characterized as the high cost of controls and low degree 
of improvement in visibility that might result from controls, the 
commenter supports EPA's determination that ``no control for 
NOX and PM at the Hill Plant is consistent with BART'' 
(citing 77 FR 31706).
    Response 2: EPA agrees that the existing emission levels of PM and 
NOX from Hill are consistent with BART, given the unique 
conditions in Hawaii.
    Comment 3: Earthjustice comments on NOX.
    One commenter (Earthjustice) stated that EPA proposed no control as 
BART for NOX even though HELCO admitted that the control 
option of low-NOX burners (LNB) is cost effective and 
proposed them as BART (citing the Trinity BART report, p. 5-11). 
According to the commenter, EPA reached this conclusion based on the 
rationale that ``due to the overwhelming contribution of sulfate to 
visibility impairment at the nearby Hawaii Volcanoes Class I area, it 
is unlikely that reductions in NOX would have a measurable 
impact on visibility at that area'' (citing 77 FR 31705). However, as 
detailed in section II.A.1., the commenter believes that EPA inflated 
the impact of sulfate by including the natural contributions of the 
K[iuml]lauea Volcano in baseline conditions but not in natural 
conditions. The commenter believes that this approach ignores the goal 
of the haze program of controlling anthropogenic visibility impairment. 
The commenter asserted that EPA cannot justify dismissing a pollution 
control that the utility already acknowledged as BART by burying it 
within the background impact of the volcano.
    The commenter also stated that EPA summarily dismisses post-
combustion controls such as selective catalytic combustion (SCR) 
because ``they were not found to be cost effective'' in the Trinity 
BART report (citing 77 FR 31706). However, according to the commenter, 
that report showed that the cost effectiveness of SCR for Hill falls 
within the range established in EPA and state BART determinations. The 
commenter quoted the Trinity BART report as including SCR costs of 
$2,600 and $2,200/ton for the units at the Hill facility, while EPA's 
proposal for BART at the Four Corners Power Plant considered cost 
estimates of $4,887 to $6,170/ton to be cost-effective (citing 75 FR 
64227, October 19, 2010) and states have established thresholds for 
cost-effectiveness such as $7,300 (Oregon), $7,000 to $10,000 
(Wisconsin), $5,946 to $7,398 (New Mexico), and $5,500 (New York).
    The commenter believes that, in any event, EPA has no basis for 
eliminating BART controls without engaging in the statutorily mandated 
five-factor BART analysis. According to the commenter, EPA simply 
waived any analysis, and any pollution reduction benefit, based on 
speculation. The commenter alleged that proper inquiry would confirm, 
for example, that LNB would prove much more effective at controlling 
NOX than the relatively high figures the utility cited.
    Response 3: EPA disagrees with the commenter's assertion that a 
full five-factor analysis was not conducted for NOX controls 
at Hill. The Trinity BART report contains a complete five-factor 
analysis of NOX controls at Hill, which is consistent with 
EPA requirements

[[Page 61486]]

and guidance.\20\ We have relied in large part on that analysis in 
conducting our own five-factor BART analysis for NOX at 
Hill. As noted by Earthjustice, the Trinity BART Report found low-
NOX burners to be cost-effective at Hill.\21\ The Trinity 
BART Report also estimated that installation of LNB would result in an 
improvement of 0.21 dv at Hawaii Volcanoes and 0.02 dv at Haleakala 
(based on the 98th percentile impacts).\22\ However, the Trinity BART 
Report noted this projection ``does not reflect reality'' because it 
``relies on an approach for establishing natural conditions that does 
not consider the local volcanic activity.'' \23\ In other words, the 
actual visibility benefit of LNB will be significantly less than 0.21 
dv, due to the impact of volcanic emissions. Taking this fact into 
account, EPA concluded that the costs of LNB were not justified by the 
visibility benefit that would actually result from installation of 
controls.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ See Trinity BART Report Chapter 5.
    \21\ See Trinity BART Report at 5-11.
    \22\ Id. Table 5-7.
    \23\ Trinity BART Report at 5-11.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In particular, EPA considered the unique atmospheric conditions on 
the Big Island, which call into question the reliability of the 
benefits predicted by the air quality model. The air quality model used 
by Trinity compared the impact of the NOX controls with 
estimated natural conditions consistent with EPA protocols. As 
described in Section II.A.1, above, the SO2 emissions from 
the volcano were not included in those natural conditions. 
SO2 emissions combine with ammonia in the atmosphere to form 
ammonium sulfate. NOX emissions combine with ammonia in the 
atmosphere to form ammonium nitrate. These ammonia compound particles 
contribute to visibility impairment. In these complex chemical 
reactions, ammonia is more likely to combine with sulfur than with 
nitrogen.\24\ As such, inclusion of SO2 emissions from 
volcanoes in the modeling would reduce the amount of ammonia available 
to combine with NOX to form ammonium nitrate. Given these 
baseline conditions at Hawaii Volcanoes NP, EPA finds that 
NOX controls will be much less effective at improving 
visibility than SO2 controls during this first planning 
period.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ See ``Chemical coupling between ammonia, acid gases, and 
fine particles'', B.H. Baek et al./Environmental Pollution 129 
(2004) 89-98.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As a result, we find that the costs of LNB are not justified by the 
visibility benefit that would actually result from installation of 
controls due to the unique atmospheric conditions on the Big Island. We 
also find that substantially more expensive post-combustion controls, 
such as SCR, were not justified for the same reason. Although the costs 
for those post-combustion controls could be reasonable in some 
contexts, they are not reasonable for Hill, given the low visibility 
improvements that would result from installation of such controls at 
this time. Nonetheless, as anthropogenic contributions to visibility 
impairment decrease over time, further reductions in NOX 
emissions may be required in order to ensure reasonable progress toward 
eliminating anthropogenic visibility impairment. Therefore, we expect 
the State of Hawaii to reevaluate the costs and visibility impacts of 
NOX controls at Hill in future regional haze plans.
    Comment 4: EPA's Determination of BART for SO2.
    One commenter (HELCO) agreed with EPA that the Hill Plant should 
not be required to install SO2 BART, stating that the potential 
improvement in visibility that might result from installing 
SO2 controls on Hill Units 5 and 6 is far outweighed by the 
excessive costs of the controls that would be imposed on HELCO and its 
customers. In contrast, another commenter (Earthjustice) stated that 
EPA's proposal to exempt the Hill facility from any BART controls falls 
short of the law's mandates by summarily eliminating any SO2 
controls based on the rationale that it may increase retail electric 
rates by 1 percent. According to this commenter, EPA must require 
demonstrably cost-effective controls, rather than readily relieving 
polluters of these obligations. Additional detail of these comments is 
presented in the paragraphs that follow.
    The first commenter (HELCO) stated that there are no cost-effective 
control options available for the Hill facility. The commenter noted 
that the BART Guidelines state that the majority of BART-eligible units 
could meet the presumptive limits at a cost of $400 to $2,000/ton of 
SO2 removed, and that the costs for Hill far exceed that 
range. According to the commenter, the Trinity BART report found that 
switching to 1 percent sulfur fuel would cost between $6,677 and 
$7,363/ton, while EPA's analysis estimated costs of $5,587/ton. The 
commenter believes that the Trinity BART report estimate is more 
accurate, but pointed out that EPA's estimate also exceeds the cost-
effectiveness threshold established in the BART Guidelines.
    This commenter also agreed with EPA's statement that imposing fuel 
switching at Hill as BART would ``unduly increas[e] electricity rates 
in Hawaii'' (citing 77 FR 31707). The commenter stated that fuel 
switching would increase both the cost of electricity produced by the 
Hill facility and the cost of electricity that HELCO purchases from 
independent power producers (IPPs) because most of the contracts with 
the IPPs are tied to HELCO's ``avoided cost'' of producing electricity; 
thus, as HELCO's fuel costs increase for Hill, the price that most of 
the IPPs receive for the renewable electricity they provide increases. 
The commenter pointed out that the BART Guidelines recognize that there 
may be circumstances that justify taking into consideration the 
conditions of the plant and the economic effects of requiring the use 
of a given control technology, including ``effects on product prices, 
the market share, and profitability of the source'' (citing 70 FR 
39130, July 6, 2005). The commenter asserted that given that the 
electricity rates in Hawaii already are three times higher than the 
national average, the increased cost of electricity alone is a 
reasonable basis for determining that BART for the Hill Plant is no 
additional controls.
    The second commenter (Earthjustice) quoted the proposal preamble as 
saying that the pollution control of switching to 1 percent sulfur fuel 
oil would produce a 0.5 dv benefit, which EPA acknowledges is ``a 
significant improvement in visibility'' (citing 77 FR 31707). In 
addition, the commenter believes that this benefit is understated 
because EPA derived the 0.5 dv figure from the Trinity BART report 
which started from a baseline impact of Hill of 1.56 dv (citing 77 FR 
31705), but EPA cited a higher baseline impact of 2.334 dv from the 
state's consultants in finding Hill subject to BART in the first 
instance (citing 77 FR 31704, 31705).
    This commenter also stated that the cumulative benefit of BART 
controls must be analyzed, contending that EPA and states have in 
numerous cases recognized and included such cumulative visibility 
benefits in BART determinations. The commenter pointed out that the 
Trinity BART report's 0.5 dv figure includes only the visibility impact 
on Volcanoes NP; it does not include the visibility impact and benefit 
to Haleakala NP. The commenter indicated that EPA cited an impact of 
0.808 dv at Haleakala NP in finding Hill subject to BART, while the 
Trinity BART report cited a figure of 0.44 dv (citing 77 FR 31705 and 
EPA's TSD, p. 50, footnote 45). The commenter stressed that in either 
case, this impact is not negligible, yet EPA has failed to calculate 
the visibility benefits to Haleakala NP. In sum, the commenter believes 
that the ``significant

[[Page 61487]]

improvement'' of 0.5 dv constitutes a bare minimum level of visibility 
benefit.
    The commenter also contended that EPA's cost-effectiveness figure 
of $5,587/ton is inflated because EPA quotes the cost of the 0.5 
percent sulfur oil burned on Oahu as an upper limit, but then assumes 
it to be the cost of 1 percent sulfur oil (citing the TSD, pp. 52-53). 
The commenter believes that in all likelihood, 1 percent sulfur oil 
would cost less than the 0.5 percent sulfur oil upper limit. The 
commenter added that, conversely, if EPA uses the cost of 0.5 percent 
sulfur oil, it also should use the pollution reduction benefit of the 
same.
    According to the commenter EPA did not determine its figure of 
$5,587/ton to be unreasonable as a general matter, but instead 
indicated that it does not believe the benefits justify the costs ``in 
this case'' (citing 77 FR 31707). The commenter alleged that the only 
grounds EPA provided for this conclusion are the following: ``We are 
particularly concerned about unduly increasing electricity rates in 
Hawaii, given that these rates are already three times the national 
average according to the Energy Information Agency'' (citing 77 FR 
31707). The commenter asserted that this rationale falls short for the 
following reasons:
     EPA's reliance on electricity rate increases contradicts 
its previous rejection of this rationale as a metric for cost 
effectiveness. In its BART determination for the San Juan Generating 
Station in New Mexico, for example, EPA maintained that ``we do not 
consider a potential increase in electricity rates to be the most 
appropriate type of analysis for considering the costs of compliance in 
a BART determination'' (citing 76 FR 52400, August 22, 2011). Rather, 
``cost effectiveness analyses are based on the cost to the owner to 
generate electricity, or the busbar cost, not market retail rates'' 
(citing 76 FR 52398).
     EPA calculated that the fuel change would bump up retail 
electricity rates by only 1 percent, which seems negligible on its 
face. EPA does not explain how 1 percent amounts to an undue increase 
in rates, or provide any method to gauge an undue increase other than 
its assertion. This amounts to an arbitrary conclusion that any control 
having an effect on rates is unreasonable.
     In proposing to eliminate BART based on electricity rate 
impacts, EPA is straying into policy decisions that are more 
appropriately left to the Public Utility Commission (PUC) of the State 
of Hawaii's authority and expertise, or the regulated utility and 
market. The PUC is best positioned to decide how Hill can be most cost-
effectively deployed in relation to all other available resource 
options if EPA fulfills its duty of controlling Hill's air pollution 
and having Hill internalize the cost. By negating BART based on 
generalized rate impact concerns, however, EPA undermines both its own 
function of controlling pollution and the PUC's regulatory function of 
managing utility resource costs and rates.
     It is not true that requiring Hill to adopt pollution 
controls will necessarily increase electric rates. Several large wind 
plants on Hawaii Island are routinely curtailed, especially at night. 
(The commenter appended many pages of HELCO's reports of such 
curtailments.) Increasing the cost of Hill's operation would not 
necessarily result in Hill's generation remaining constant and costs 
proportionately rising. Rather, it may lead the utility to reduce 
Hill's use to save on the increased fuel costs and instead receive more 
wind energy, which has a zero fuel cost (as well as zero pollution 
impact). In that case, an actual reduction in costs and rates may 
result (along with an even greater pollution reduction and visibility 
benefit than EPA calculated).
     EPA's proposal would not help to avoid unduly increasing 
electric rates, as much as it would distort the relative costs of 
polluting and clean energy resources and unduly disadvantage the 
latter. EPA recognizes the goals of the state's ``Clean Energy Bill'' 
(i.e., the state's renewable portfolio standard [RPS] and energy 
efficiency portfolio standard), although it does not make clear how 
this contributes to its analysis. The RPS allows a waiver of its 
requirements, however, based on ``[i]nability to acquire sufficient 
cost-effective renewable electrical energy,'' Haw. Rev. Stat. Sec.  
269-92(d) (2011 Supp.), which highlights the need for polluting 
generation like Hill to incorporate the costs of cost-effective 
pollution controls to enable accurate comparisons with ``cost-
effective'' renewable energy. In this regard, EPA's proposal not only 
forfeits cost-effective pollution control now, but also works against 
the State's cited clean energy goals overall by exempting Hill from 
such costs and thus artificially subsidizing it relative to clean 
generation.
    The commenter (Earthjustice) concluded by asserting that at 
minimum, EPA's proposal and rationale fail to consider the overall 
benefits of adopting the cost-effective option of switching to low-
sulfur fuel, including a potential reduction in electric rates. The 
commenter believes that this highlights the analytical and practical 
flaws in EPA's use of utility rates as a justification to avoid its 
responsibility of requiring cost-effective pollution controls.
    Response 4: We reaffirm that our BART determination for 
SO2 at Hill was reasonable. With respect to visibility 
impacts from Hill, EPA acknowledges that the modeling by the State's 
consultants estimated a higher baseline impact at Hawaii Volcanoes NP 
(2.334 dv) than the modeling in the Trinity BART report (baseline 
impact of 1.56 dv). However, EPA does not consider one estimate to be 
more reliable than the other. The Trinity modeling was performed in 
accordance with EPA guidance and based on appropriately developed 
meteorological modeling data.\25\ Even if we were to assume that the 
State's consultant's modeling results were somehow more accurate, it 
would not change our determination. Assuming a baseline impact at 
Hawaii Volcanoes of 2.334 dv from Hill, the corresponding estimated 
visibility benefit of switching to 1 percent sulfur oil would be 
approximately 0.8 dv. We find that this benefit is not sufficient to 
justify the cost of $5,587/ton.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ The Trinity CALPUFF modeling was performed using the 
current regulatory version of the model, CALPUFF version 5.8, level 
070623. The meteorological modeling prepared by JCA for the Trinity 
CALPUFF modeling was based on the MM5 mesoscale meteorological model 
developed by scientists at Penn State University (PSU) and The 
National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR). The CALPUFF 
regional haze modeling domain was based on three of the MM5 modeling 
domains which were used as CALMET inputs. The first domain is a 9 km 
resolution `State' grid encompassing the 8 major Hawaiian Islands 
and two domains are 3 km resolution grids encompassing the islands 
of Maui and the Big Island, respectively. The MM5 modeling period 
extends from January 1, 2005 to January 1, 2008. The results of the 
statistical analysis show the MM5 simulations for the state of 
Hawaii are in close agreement with acceptable benchmarks for all of 
the examined variables. For example, the wind speed agreement 
appears to be good, with typical bias below the recommended 0.5 m/s 
error. See also TSD pp. 48 and 50.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regarding the ``cumulative benefit'' of BART controls, EPA notes 
that the RHR and the BART Guidelines do not prescribe a particular 
approach to calculating or considering visibility benefits across 
multiple Class I areas. Summing the total visibility benefits over 
multiple Class I areas is a useful metric that can further inform the 
BART determination. However, in this instance, the baseline impacts of 
Hill at the only other affected Class I area, Haleakala NP, were less 
than 0.5 dv, and the projected improvement of switching to 1 percent 
sulfur fuel was 0.2 dv.\26\ We

[[Page 61488]]

have taken this benefit into account in making our BART determination, 
but have concluded that this benefit (in addition to the 0.5-0.8 dv 
benefit for Hawaii Volcanoes) is not sufficient to justify requiring 1 
percent sulfur fuel oil as BART, given the costs of compliance for this 
control option.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ See Letter from Brenner Munger, Manager, Environmental 
Department, Hawaiian Electric Company to Tom Webb, U.S. EPA Region 
9, October 11, 2011, Document No. EPA-R09-OAR-2012-0345-0011--
attachment 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With respect to the costs-of-compliance factor for Hill, EPA has 
primarily taken into account the average cost effectiveness of 
controls, as recommended by the BART Guidelines.\27\ We do not agree 
with HELCO that the BART Guidelines set any ``cost-effectiveness 
threshold.'' Rather, the Guidelines set presumptive BART limits of 95 
percent SO2 removal, or an emission rate of 0.15 lb 
SO2/MMBtu, for currently uncontrolled coal-fired EGUs 
greater than 200 MW in size located at power plants greater than 750 
MW.\28\ In the preamble to the Guidelines, EPA noted that the majority 
of BART-eligible units with these characteristics could meet the 
presumptive limits at a cost of $400 to $2,000 per ton of 
SO2 removed.\29\ However, EPA did not indicate that these 
cost-effective values constituted a ``threshold.'' Moreover, the BART 
Guidelines do not set a presumptive limit for EGUs that burn oil, but 
instead recommend that ``[f]or oil-fired units, regardless of size, you 
should evaluate limiting the sulfur content of the fuel oil burned to 1 
percent or less by weight.'' \30\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ 40 CFR part 51, Appendix Y, Sec.  IV.D.4.c.
    \28\ 40 CFR part 51, Appendix Y, Sec.  IV.E.4.
    \29\ 70 FR 39132. July 6, 2005.
    \30\ 40 CFR part 51, Appendix Y, Sec.  IV.E.4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In this case, we estimated the average cost effectiveness of 
limiting the sulfur content of the fuel oil burned at Hill to 1 
percent, based on reasonable assumptions concerning fuel costs in 
Hawaii. As explained in Section VI.D.2 of the TSD, since data for the 
continental United States would not reflect transportation costs to 
Hawaii, EPA determined that it was appropriate to use fuel market data 
for the State of Hawaii. Currently, the power plants on Oahu burn oil 
that is no more than 0.5 percent sulfur by weight, while the power 
plants on Maui and the Big Island (including Hill) burn oil that is no 
more than 2 percent sulfur by weight. In addition, the 0.5 percent fuel 
oil burned on Oahu has significantly different mechanical properties 
than the fuel burned on the Big Island.\31\ Power plants on the Big 
Island would not be able to use the Oahu fuel without extensive 
modification to barges, pipelines in the ground, storage tanks, and 
boiler fuel delivery systems. Therefore, use of the 0.5 percent oil 
used on Oahu is not a viable option for Hill or the other power plants 
on the Big Island. In addition, we were not able to find market data 
for Hawaii or for the continental United States for 0.5 percent fuel 
oil that could be used on the Big Island. Therefore, our SO2 
BART analysis for Hill focused on the costs of switching to 1 percent 
sulfur fuel oil.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \31\ See Trinity BART Report at pg. 4-2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the absence of any reliable publicly available data on the cost 
of 1 percent sulfur fuel oil in the State of Hawaii, we determined that 
it was appropriate to use the price of the Oahu 0.5 percent oil as an 
upper limit to the cost of 1 percent sulfur fuel oil. In other words, 
we assumed that, if 1 percent sulfur fuel oil were available on Oahu, 
it would cost the same or less than the 0.5 percent sulfur fuel burned 
on Oahu. The six-year (2006-2011) average cost differential between 0.5 
percent fuel oil used on Oahu and the 2 percent fuel oil used on Maui 
and the Big Island is 0.190 $/gal, so we assumed that 1 percent sulfur 
fuel oil will, on average, cost 0.190 $/gal more than the 2 percent 
sulfur fuel oil currently being burned. We recognize that this is a 
conservative assumption, but find it to be reasonable, in light of the 
lack of reliable, publicly available market data for 1 percent sulfur 
fuel oil in Hawaii.
    Based on this and other reasonable assumptions, we estimated that 
the average cost effectiveness of limiting the sulfur content of the 
fuel oil burned at Hill to 1 percent would be approximately $5,587/ton. 
We have concluded that $5,587/ton is too expensive to justify the 
projected visibility benefit of approximately 0.5-0.8 dv at Hawaii 
Volcanoes NP and 0.2 dv at Haleakala NP.
    In addition to average cost effectiveness, EPA also took into 
account the potential impact of controls on electricity rates on the 
Big Island. Contrary to the commenter's assertion, consideration of 
electricity rates is not impermissible as part of a BART determination. 
The BART Guidelines provide that:

    There may be unusual circumstances that justify taking into 
consideration the conditions of the plant and the economic effects 
of requiring the use of a given control technology. These effects 
would include effects on product prices, the market share, and 
profitability of the source. Where there are such unusual 
circumstances that are judged to affect plant operations, you may 
take into consideration the conditions of the plant and the economic 
effects of requiring the use of a control technology. Where these 
effects are judged to have a severe impact on plant operations you 
may consider them in the selection process, but you may wish to 
provide an economic analysis that demonstrates, in sufficient detail 
for public review, the specific economic effects, parameters, and 
reasoning.\32\

    \32\ 40 CFR Part 51, Appendix Y, BART Guidelines Sec.  IV.E.3.

    EPA has determined that the unique energy situation in Hawaii 
(island-specific power grid, no availability of natural gas, high 
electric rates) constitutes an unusual circumstance, and accordingly, 
has considered the potential economic effects of requiring lower sulfur 
fuel as BART. In doing so, EPA is not ``straying into policy decisions 
that are more appropriately left to the [PUC] * * * or the regulated 
utility and market.'' Rather, EPA is exercising its discretion to 
consider unusual economic circumstances as part of its BART analysis. 
EPA agrees that the ``PUC is best positioned to decide how Hill can be 
most cost-effectively deployed in relation to all other available 
resource options'' and our BART determination does not constrain the 
PUC's ability to exercise this authority in any way.
    EPA's consideration of the potential impact on electricity rates on 
Hawaii does not contradict previous EPA's BART determinations. With 
respect to EPA's BART determination for Public Service Company of New 
Mexico's (PNM) San Juan Generation Station (SJGS), the commenter's 
quotation of EPA's responses to comments is misleading. While EPA did 
not calculate potential increases in electricity rates associated with 
BART for SJGS, we noted that ``our cost estimate, being about \1/3\ 
that of PNM's, will result in significantly less costs being passed on 
to rate payers.'' \33\ EPA's statement that ``cost effectiveness 
analyses are based on the cost to the owner to generate electricity, or 
the busbar cost, not market retail rates'' pertains to the appropriate 
way to calculate the cost of auxiliary power needed to run a selective 
catalytic reduction (SCR) system and is not a general statement on the 
relevance of electricity rates to BART determinations.\34\ In addition, 
the unique circumstances in Hawaii where there is no grid 
interconnectivity between islands to mitigate costs to ratepayers were 
not present in New Mexico.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \33\ 76 FR 52400.
    \34\ 76 FR 52398.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We also note that EPA has taken into account economic effects as 
part of its BART determinations for other power plants with unusual 
circumstances. For

[[Page 61489]]

example, the Four Corners Power Plant (FCPP) is located on the Navajo 
Nation and contributes annually to revenues to the Navajo government 
through lease payments and coal royalties. In response to concerns 
raised by the Navajo Nation that options considered for BART may cause 
FCPP to close, EPA conducted an affordability analysis for our proposed 
BART determination for FCPP.\35\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \35\ 75 FR 64227, October 19, 2010.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, we acknowledge that additional factors could influence the 
ratepayer impacts of requiring lower sulfur fuel. As noted by 
Earthjustice, increased fuel costs at Hill could result in the 
increased use of other types of generation. At the same time, the cost 
of electricity that HELCO purchases from IPPs could also increase due 
to increases in HELCO's ``avoided cost'' of producing electricity. 
These factors are outside of the scope of our analysis, but we note 
that it is not clear whether the overall effect of switching to 
alternative sources of generation would be to further increase costs or 
to mitigate the impact to ratepayers. As such, our estimate of 
ratepayer impacts is far from certain. Therefore, while we have 
considered these impacts as part of our analysis, we do not rely upon 
them specifically as part of our final BART determination.
    In sum, taking into account the five BART factors, and particularly 
the costs of control and expected visibility improvement, we conclude 
that BART for Hill is no additional controls.
7. NOX Reasonable Progress Analysis for the State of Hawaii
    Comment 1: Determining reasonable progress through island-specific 
emissions inventories.
    One commenter (Earthjustice) objected to the fact that EPA limited 
its emissions inventories only to Maui and the Big Island in isolation. 
According to the commenter, EPA supported this approach by saying that 
``trade winds tend to transport pollution from Oahu away from the Class 
I areas'' (citing 77 FR 31708). The commenter pointed out that the 
``Kona'' winds often blow in the opposite directions, sometimes for as 
long as a week at a time, and asserted that general meteorological 
tendencies do not justify EPA summarily exempting all pollution sources 
from Oahu.
    The commenter also quoted EPA as saying that modeling ``indicates 
that even very large sources on Oahu have relatively small visibility 
impacts on Haleakala'' (citing 77 FR 31708). The commenter stated that 
these visibility impacts are understated. According to the commenter, 
EPA's BART Guidelines recommend a minimum of three years of 
meteorological modeling for such analysis, while in this case, only one 
year of data were available. The commenter indicated that in other 
cases where only one year of modeling was conducted, it was established 
that the highest result, and not the 98th percentile result, should be 
used, and that in this case the highest result would have provided a 
visibility impact for two large plants on Oahu (Kahe and Waiau) of 1.28 
and 0.57 dv at Haleakala NP, respectively, subjecting those plants to 
BART.
    Response 1: The meteorological modeling for the analysis is based 
on one year of meteorological data, which represents the variety of 
meteorological conditions that occur throughout the year. This includes 
time periods when ``Kona'' winds are prevalent. Kona winds are from the 
west and southwest. These winds also direct emissions from Oahu away 
from the Class I areas.
    EPA's BART Guidelines do not specify a minimum number of years of 
meteorological modeling for subject-to-BART analyses, but EPA agrees 
with the commenter that it is generally appropriate to use three to 
five years of meteorological data for such analyses. For Hawaii, the 
subject-to-BART modeling was performed using the best available 
meteorological modeling available at the time, which for Hawaii was one 
year of meteorological modeling.\36\ Given the generally consistent 
Pacific trade wind patterns, EPA concludes that this meteorological 
modeling, based on one year of data, is adequate to sufficiently 
represent the range of meteorological conditions in Hawaii. Therefore, 
we find that it is appropriate to use the 98th percentile in the case 
of Hawaii for making subject-to-BART determinations. Based on the 
results of this modeling and information on prevailing winds, it is 
reasonable to assume that emissions from Oahu do not contribute to 
visibility impairment at the Class I areas on Maui or the Big Island.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \36\ The Western Regional Air Partnership provided three years 
of meteorological modeling for the analysis for all western states, 
with the exception of Hawaii and Alaska. Because meteorological 
modeling was not provided for Hawaii, Hawaii DOH directed their 
contractor to prepare meteorological modeling for the subject-to-
BART analysis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comment 2: EPA's reasonable progress analysis for NOX sources on 
Maui and the Big Island.
    One commenter (Earthjustice) indicated that EPA should not have 
eliminated controls for NOX in its reasonable progress 
analysis. According to the commenter, EPA ignored its own guidance 
indicating that installation of LNB is ``highly cost-effective'' 
(citing 40 CFR part 51, Appendix Y), as well as the utilities' own 
analysis confirming the same (citing the Trinity BART report). The 
commenter asserted that EPA circumvented the legally mandated analysis 
for reasonable progress by misleadingly claiming a ``small 
contribution'' of NOX in relation to SO2 levels 
inflated by volcano impacts.
    In contrast, two other commenters (HC&S, MECO) agreed with the 
proposal that sources on Maui and the Big Island should not be required 
to install NOX controls. The commenters stated that such 
controls are not justified given the 20 percent net reduction in 
NOX emissions anticipated from existing regulations and the 
small contribution of NOX to visibility impairment in 
Hawaii's Class I areas. One of the commenters (MECO) also indicated 
that such controls are not justified due to the high cost of 
compliance.
    Response 2: Based on our analysis of the reasonable progress 
factors, as set forth in section III.F.2. of our proposal,\37\ and 
given the unique atmospheric conditions in Hawaii, as described in 
section II.A.6 above, EPA finds that the significant reductions in 
NOX emissions from mobile sources are sufficient to show 
reasonable progress for the first planning period for both Maui and the 
Big Island. Additional controls on industrial NOX sources 
may be required in future planning periods.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \37\ 77 FR 31708, 31709.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

8. Reasonable Progress Analysis for SO2 Emissions on the Big 
Island
    Comment 1: Cap could/should be lower.
    One commenter (NPS) believes that the proposed SO2 cap 
for certain point sources on the Big Island is the minimum acceptable 
action to demonstrate reasonable progress for Hawaii Volcanoes NP. 
Given the reductions projected under Hawaii's Clean Energy Bill, the 
commenter believes that a lower SO2 emissions cap is 
feasible and justified. The commenter also noted that EPA's analysis 
used the current costs for 0.5 percent sulfur fuel oil on Oahu to 
estimate the costs of 1.0 percent sulfur fuel oil on Maui and the Big 
Island, concluding that EPA likely overestimated the costs of switching 
to 1.0 percent sulfur fuel oil.
    Another commenter (Earthjustice) stated that the proposed 
SO2 cap on certain HELCO plants on the Big Island does not 
achieve progress toward eliminating anthropogenic visibility 
impairment, but instead largely

[[Page 61490]]

maintains status quo emissions levels (noting that the proposed cap 
level of 3,550 tpy is only 375 tpy less than the affected plants' 
current baseline SO2 emissions of 3,875 tpy). The commenter 
questions why EPA does not adopt the State's clean energy mandates 
under which the HELCO plants' SO2 emissions are projected to 
decline to around 1,000 tpy or less as part of the long-term strategy 
(and thereby make these reductions federally enforceable), particularly 
since they reflect the State's own legal mandates and judgments as to 
what is reasonable.
    This commenter added that while the proposed cap serves as a 
minimal ``backstop'' against increased pollution, it does not fulfill 
the legal mandate of progress toward eliminating anthropogenic 
visibility impairment. The commenter stated that EPA must, first, 
calculate a meaningful URP that is unskewed by volcano conditions and 
second, require a rate of reasonable progress that is no less than the 
URP and reflects NOX and SO2 controls and state 
clean energy mandates. The commenter believes that EPA has not 
justified its failure to provide for achievement of a ``rationally 
based'' URP, or its failure to consider or provide for even greater 
progress, as its own rules and policies require.
    Response 1: Based on our analysis of the reasonable progress 
factors, set forth in section III.F.4 of our proposal,\38\ and given 
the unique atmospheric conditions in Hawaii, as described in section 
II.A.6 above, EPA finds that the proposed cap of 3,550 tpy is 
sufficient to ensure reasonable progress for this planning period. This 
cap provides a federally enforceable requirement to ensure that total 
emissions of SO2 from the sources on the Big Island with the 
greatest anthropogenic visibility impacts on Hawaii Volcanoes NP will 
not increase over the course of the first implementation period. With 
the cap in place, total anthropogenic emissions of SO2 on 
the Big Island are expected to decline during this period.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \38\ 77 FR 31710.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Hawaii 2009 Clean Energy Omnibus Bill (Act 155 (09), HB1464, 
signed June 25, 2009, [hereinafter ``Clean Energy Bill'']) sets 
standards for renewable energy and energy conservation which would tend 
to reduce emissions at Hill, Shipman and Puna. However, it is unclear 
how those standards will be met and what new generation will be on line 
by January 1, 2018. The analysis of the bill provided by EPA in the 
proposal was intended to give the reader a qualitative understanding of 
the uncertainty in existing 2018 emission projections for these plants. 
It is up to the State of Hawaii to determine how the Clean Energy Bill 
is implemented and it is quite possible that Hill, Shipman and Puna 
will continue to operate at a similar capacity in 2018 as they do now. 
In light of this uncertainty, EPA finds it is reasonable to set a cap 
that could be met entirely by conversion to 1 percent fuel oil at the 
targeted plants, even if these plants did not have to reduce emissions 
under the Clean Energy Bill.
    We also find that no additional reductions in anthropogenic 
SO2 emissions are reasonable for this implementation period. 
As noted in our proposal, we estimate that meeting the cap through 
conversion to 1 percent fuel oil will cost approximately $7.9 million 
per year and $5,600/ton of SO2 reduced.\39\ We acknowledge 
that this cost estimate is conservative, but we find it to be 
reasonable for the reasons set forth in Section VI.D.2 of the TSD and 
Section II.B.6 above.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \39\ 77 FR 31711, 31712. Table 23 in the proposal mistakenly 
listed the total cost as $7,859,89,'' but the text correctly 
reflects the estimated cost of $7.9 million.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, we do not agree that EPA must or should set RPGs for 
Hawaii that provide for a rate of improvement equivalent to or faster 
than the URP. As explained in Section II.A.1 above, the URP does not 
set a mandatory target for emissions reductions and is unhelpful in 
setting RPGs for Hawaii, given the unpredictability of volcanic 
emissions.
    Comment 2: High cost of proposed cap outweighs possible benefits.
    One commenter (HELCO) does not agree that a cap is required to meet 
reasonable progress goals. The commenters asserted that the costs and 
non-air quality and energy impacts of achieving SO2 
emissions reductions are excessive, and are unlikely to achieve any 
improvement in visibility; thus, the commenter believes that no 
controls should be required.
    The commenter asserted that EPA has significantly underestimated 
the costs of switching to 1 percent sulfur fuel at the Hill, Puna, and 
Shipman Plants, noting that EPA estimated that the proposed emissions 
cap will cost $5,500/ton of SO2 reduced annually (citing 77 
FR 31711), while the commenter estimates that this control measure 
would cost approximately $7,354/ton at Hill, $7,204/ton at Shipman, and 
$7,205/ton at Puna. The commenter indicated that EPA's cost estimate 
fails to account for all of the costs associated with switching fuels 
at these facilities. As previously discussed in the section of this 
document on SO2 BART (Section II.A.6.), fuel switching at 
the commenter's facilities will increase both the cost of electricity 
produced by the commenter's units and the cost of electricity that the 
commenter purchases from specific IPPs with avoided cost pricing. The 
commenter stated that EPA has not provided a reasoned basis for 
disregarding the commenter's cost estimates.
    In addition, the commenter asserted that the visibility 
improvements anticipated by EPA do not justify the costs associated 
with complying with the proposed cap. The commenter made the following 
points in support of this assertion:
     EPA's proposal is based on modeling showing that Hill and 
Puna may be causing or contributing to impairment at Haleakala NP and 
that Shipman may be contributing to visibility impairment at Hawaii 
Volcanoes NP, using the same conservative assumptions used for MECO's 
Kahului Plant on Maui (citing 77 FR 31711). For Kahului, EPA's modeling 
was ``based on conservative assumptions that are unlikely to occur 
during normal operations'' (citing 77 FR 31709). Such tenuous 
connections to visibility impacts should not be the basis for imposing 
significant costs on HELCO's ratepayers.
     The proposed cap cannot be justified based on the ``slight 
improvement'' in projected visibility for 2018 at Volcanoes NP (0.18 
dv) and Haleakala NP (0.29 dv) (citing 77 FR 31713). These levels are 
far less than either the level necessary for a perceptible improvement 
in visibility or the level of improvement EPA estimated in the BART 
analysis for the Hill Plant (citing 77 FR 31707).
     There is no reasonable basis for EPA's determination that 
a control cost of $5,500/ton of SO2 and a 2 percent increase 
in electricity rates are justified for a visibility improvement of 
significantly less than 0.5 dv. In the BART analysis for the Hill 
Plant, EPA determined that a 0.5 dv improvement was outweighed by a 
control cost of $5,600/ton and a 1 percent increase in electricity 
rates (citing 77 FR 31707). EPA fails to explain why an emissions cap 
that achieves less at a greater cost to rate-payers is justified as a 
reasonable progress requirement, particularly since the degree of 
improvement in visibility is a factor in determining BART and is not a 
factor in determining reasonable progress [citing 40 CFR 51.308(d)].
     The high control costs for fuel switching are excessive 
for an aesthetic program such as Regional Haze. These costs far exceed 
the cost thresholds EPA recently applied in the Cross-State Air

[[Page 61491]]

Pollution Rule (citing 76 FR 48208, August 8, 2011), which is a health-
based standard for which EPA selected cost-effectiveness thresholds of 
$500/ton for NOX reductions and $500 or $2,300/ton for 
SO2 reductions.
    The commenter went on to assert that the proposed emissions cap is 
not necessary to meet reasonable progress goals because of the high 
likelihood that SO2 emissions from the affected facilities 
will decrease absent any Regional Haze requirement due to Hawaii's 
Clean Energy Bill. According to the commenter, EPA guidance indicates 
that emissions reductions from local control measures are an important 
factor in establishing reasonable progress goals and may be all that is 
necessary to achieve reasonable progress in the first planning period 
for some states. Citing EPA's Reasonable Progress Guidance, the 
commenter stated that despite EPA's assertion to the contrary (citing 
77 FR 31712), neither the BART Guidelines nor the statute requires that 
emissions reductions from state programs must be federally enforceable 
to be considered in a reasonable progress analysis.
    Finally, the commenter stated the understanding that EPA believes 
anthropogenic controls are necessary because Kilauea could stop 
erupting at any time, leaving all resulting visibility impairment from 
anthropogenic emissions that must be addressed. As discussed earlier, 
the commenter believes that even if Kilauea stopped erupting tomorrow, 
SO2 emissions from the volcano would continue. Rather than 
imposing controls and significant costs to address what the commenter 
believes is an unlikely hypothetical situation, the commenter suggested 
that EPA should conclude that controls are not necessary during this 
planning period to meet reasonable progress goals but must be re-
evaluated during the next planning period. The commenter believes that 
such an approach ensures that any burdens imposed on the commenter's 
rate payers are justified by real-world environmental benefits.
    Response 2: As an initial matter, we do not agree that we can rely 
solely on state and local measures to ensure reasonable progress under 
this Regional Haze FIP. Pursuant to CAA section 169A(b)(2), Regional 
Haze SIPs must include ``such emission limits, schedules of compliance 
and other measures as may be necessary to make reasonable progress 
toward meeting the national goal * * *'' of achieving natural 
visibility conditions in all mandatory Class I areas. This statutory 
requirement is implemented through the RHR, which requires that the 
long-term strategy element of a Regional Haze SIP, ``* * * include 
enforceable emissions limitations, compliance schedules, and other 
measures as necessary to achieve the reasonable progress goals * * *'' 
\40\ Once approved by EPA into the applicable SIP, these emission 
limits, schedules of compliance and other measures become federally 
enforceable under the CAA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \40\ 40 CFR 51.308(d)(3) (emphasis added).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In this regard, the commenter's selective quotation from EPA's 
Reasonable Progress Guidance is misleading. The Guidance notes that:

    One important factor to keep in mind when establishing a RPG is 
that you cannot adopt a RPG that represents less visibility 
improvement than is expected to result from the implementation of 
other CAA requirements. You must therefore determine the amount of 
emission reductions that can be expected from identified sources or 
source categories as a result of requirements at the local, State, 
and federal levels during the planning period of the SIP and the 
resulting improvements in visibility at Class I areas. Given the 
significant emissions reductions that we anticipate to result from 
BART, the CAIR, and the implementation of other CAA programs, 
including the ozone and PM2.5 NAAQS, for many States this 
will be an important step in determining your RPG, and it may be all 
that is necessary to achieve reasonable progress in the first 
planning period for some States.\41\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \41\ See Section 1-4 of ``Guidance for Tracking Progress Under 
the Regional Haze Rule'', Document No. EPA-R09-OAR-2012-0345-0003-
B10 (emphasis added).

    Read in context, it is clear that the discussion in the Guidance of 
state and local measures refers only to measures resulting from 
implementation of other CAA requirements (i.e., federally enforceable 
requirements promulgated by EPA or submitted by the State and approved 
by EPA into the applicable SIP). Hawaii has not submitted the measures 
contained in the Clean Energy Bill for approval into the applicable 
SIP. Therefore, these are not federally enforceable and, in 
promulgating a Regional Haze FIP, we cannot rely on these measures to 
assure that reasonable progress is made during the first planning 
period. In addition, we note that the Clean Energy Bill is not intended 
to address regional haze and does not specifically target those sources 
found to cause or contribute to visibility impairment in Hawaii's Class 
I areas. While implementation of the Clean Energy Bill may lead to 
reductions in emissions of SO2 emissions from such sources, 
it does not ensure that such reductions will occur. We expect that 
Hawaii will assess the actual effects of the Clean Energy Bill and 
consider incorporating some or all of these measures into the SIP as 
part of future Regional Haze plans. The RHR requires that regional haze 
plans ``ensure no degradation in visibility for the least impaired days 
over the [planning] period.'' \42\ As explained in our proposal, our 
reasonable progress analysis for Hawaii focuses on anthropogenic 
emissions of visibility-impairing pollutants, as measured through 
island-specific emissions inventories.\43\ Without additional federally 
enforceable controls, anthropogenic emissions of SO2 on the 
Big Island are projected to increase between 2005 and 2018.\44\ 
SO2 is the principal cause of visibility impairment on the 
best 20 percent days at the Hawaii Volcanoes NP.\45\ If anthropogenic 
SO2 emissions on the Big Island were to increase between 
2005 and 2018, it is reasonable to assume that visibility on the best 
days would degrade. Therefore, additional control measures are needed 
to prevent such degradation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \42\ 40 CFR 51.308(d)(1).
    \43\ See 77 FR 31707.
    \44\ TSD at 41-42.
    \45\ TSD at 24-25.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With regard to the costs of compliance, EPA recognizes that there 
is a great deal of uncertainty in projecting the future costs of 
petroleum products. The EPA-estimated cost of $5,587/ton is 
conservative, and was presented as an upper bound on what the costs 
could be in order to inform as best as possible both EPA's decision 
making and public comment. Because it is a conservative estimate that 
likely does not represent the true cost of the cap, we believe it would 
not be appropriate to use this cost estimate as a benchmark for BART or 
reasonable progress decisions on other sources in Hawaii or other 
states. EPA is unable to describe our specific disagreements with the 
details of HELCO's cost analysis because the company claimed that 
analysis as confidential business information (CBI).\46\ EPA agrees 
with HELCO that if the utility were to decide to meet the cap by 
purchasing more expensive fuel, the costs to the ratepayers may be 
greater than a 2 percent increase in rates. This is due to HELCO's 
contracts with independent power producers (IPPs) that specify that the 
IPPs would be paid based on avoided costs. Nonetheless, we expect that 
HELCO will be able to limit the impact on ratepayers by meeting the cap 
through increased use of clean power as

[[Page 61492]]

mandated by the Hawaii Clean Energy Bill.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \46\ EPA's regulations governing treatment of CBI are set out at 
40 CFR Part 2, Subpart B.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, HELCO misstates EPA's position regarding the need to 
control anthropogenic SO2 emissions in light of the fact 
that the emissions of the volcano are uncertain and variable. As noted 
above, the RHR requires that RPGs ``ensure no degradation in visibility 
for the least impaired days'' over the period of the implementation 
plan.\47\ Given that SO2 is the principal cause of 
visibility impairment on even the best days, limiting emissions of 
SO2 from manmade sources is necessary to ensure no 
degradation. Whether the volcano continues to erupt or not is not 
directly relevant. EPA has identified Hill, Shipman and Puna as 
appropriate sources to control because modeling indicates that they 
contribute to visibility impairment at Hawaii Volcanoes National Park. 
We have selected the lowest cost emissions control method to set the 
emissions cap and have provided HELCO with substantial flexibility on 
how to meet that cap.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \47\ 40 CFR Sec.  51.308(d)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comment 3: HELCO willing to accept a 24-month cap.
    One commenter (HELCO) stated that in spite of disagreeing about the 
reductions necessary to meet reasonable progress goals, the commenter 
appreciates the flexibility that an emissions cap provides and is 
prepared to accept a cap on SO2 emissions at its Puna, Hill, 
and Shipman facilities. However, the commenter asserted that it is 
critical to the commenter's ability to cost-effectively dispatch its 
system and maintain reliability that compliance with the cap be 
determined over a 24-month period (i.e., a rolling 24-month cap of 
7,100 tons rather than a 12-month cap of 3,550 tons).
    The commenter's primary concern is that the company be able to 
operate the five units subject to the proposed cap as much as necessary 
in the event of concurrent forced outages of a significant duration at 
multiple units within its system; this concern arises from historic 
events involving the IPPs that provide almost 90 megawatts of power to 
the commenter's system. In such a situation under the proposed 12-month 
cap, the commenter might find itself faced with two unacceptable 
options--violate the cap to maintain grid reliability or allow rolling 
blackouts. The commenter indicated that a 24-month cap would provide 
sufficient flexibility to ensure reliability without incurring CAA 
penalties.
    The commenter added that a 24-month cap would diffuse the potential 
increase in electricity rates that may occur if multiple overlapping 
forced outages occurred under a 12-month cap, necessitating increased 
generation with higher-cost diesel-fired units. A 24-month cap would 
allow the commenter to operate its most cost-effective units as needed 
during an event and then offset the period of higher emissions during 
the remainder of the compliance period.
    The commenter also stated that if EPA does not establish a 24-month 
cap, it is critical that EPA create an exemption to the 12-month cap in 
the event of concurrent forced outages of significant duration at 
multiple units in the system. Because its system is isolated, the 
commenter does not have the option of purchasing replacement power and 
must be able to operate its units as needed to maintain system 
reliability.
    Finally, the commenter requested that if a 12-month cap is 
established, EPA confirm that compliance must first be demonstrated on 
December 31, 2018, rather than January 31, 2018. The commenter 
indicated that the difference is extremely important for planning and 
implementing compliance measures. The commenter is concerned that the 
proposed FIP is not clear on this matter [citing proposed 40 CFR 
52.633(d)(4) and 77 FR 31718].
    Response 3: EPA understands the commenter's concern for electric 
reliability, but moving to a 24-month rolling average would 
significantly weaken the control requirement by allowing for greater 
number of days in each year that have large 24-hour emission rates. We 
note that, under the BART Guidelines, emissions limits for EGUs are set 
as 30-day rolling averages in order to ensure that they are enforceable 
and consistent across sources. Because the SO2 emission cap 
here is being set pursuant to reasonable progress requirements, rather 
than BART requirements, we have provided HELCO with the additional 
flexibility of a 12-month rolling cap, rather than a 30-day rolling 
average limit, in order to address concerns about costs and electric 
reliability. However, given that reasonable progress is measured by the 
best 20 percent days and worst 20 percent days on an annual basis, we 
do not agree that an averaging time greater than 12-months to be 
appropriate. Nonetheless, EPA may be willing to consider a modification 
of the control requirement that would allow for short-term exceedances 
of the cap in conditions where electric reliability is genuinely at 
risk. However, such an amendment to the rule would need to comply with 
all substantive and procedural CAA requirements for implementation plan 
revisions. Since this requirement is not scheduled to go into effect 
until 2018, there is adequate time for promulgation of such a revision 
via notice-and-comment rulemaking.
    EPA confirms that HELCO would need to first demonstrate compliance 
with the cap on December 31, 2018. The rule language has been modified 
to clarify this issue.
    Comment 4: Alternative approach.
    One commenter stated that EPA's proposed SO2 limits for 
the Big Island power plants appear to ignore the very large emissions 
from the volcano, which are much greater than those from the power 
plants. According to the commenter, adding cost to power generation 
that is already the highest in the nation with no benefit makes no 
sense and adds to the perception that EPA is not working in the best 
interest of the country. However, the commenter noted that because 
emissions from the volcano might decrease or stop in the future, some 
limit to power plant emissions would be appropriate.
    To address this issue, the commenter suggested a ``second order'' 
limit that is tied to the amount of volcanic emissions. As explained by 
the commenter, the limit would consist of a constant limit that would 
not affect the visibility from the volcano should volcanic emissions 
stop (i.e., the current amount of emissions EPA considers appropriate 
should volcanic emissions stop), plus a variable amount that would be 
some fraction of emissions from the volcano (e.g., 2 percent of the 
volcanic emissions, an amount that would be undetectable given the 
volcanic emission variation and clearly would not impact visibility). 
The commenter believes such a limit would provide ``breathing room'' 
for HELCO and price relief for its customers, while at the same time 
meeting EPA's mandate to limit emissions to values that will not 
significantly affect visibility in national parks and not adding to the 
public perception that EPA is working against the citizens of this 
country.
    Response 4: EPA appreciates the commenter's concerns, and the 
thought that went into this comment. However, we do not agree that our 
proposed emission cap ignores the very large emissions from the 
volcano. Rather, the cap is intended to limit the anthropogenic 
contributions to haze, consistent with the purpose and the requirements 
of the RHR. We agree with the commenter that accounting for the impact 
of the volcano presents a significant challenge for Regional Haze 
planning in Hawaii. Unfortunately, given the high variability and 
uncertainty of the volcanic emissions, the commenter's suggested 
approach

[[Page 61493]]

would result in a situation where the electric utility would not know 
what their allowable SO2 emissions would be until after the 
data on the volcanic emissions are available. This approach would not 
be workable.
    Comment 5: Other comment.
    One commenter stated that EPA is mistaken if it thinks that it is 
going to raise taxes or rates in Hawaii over what the commenter termed 
``some ignorant climate change haze nonsense.''
    Response 5: This rulemaking is required to meet requirements set 
under the CAA amendments of 1990 to move toward eliminating 
anthropogenic visibility impairment at Class I areas. It is not related 
to climate change. EPA is cognizant of the potential costs of the plan 
and so has designed it to minimize impact on the ratepayers as much as 
possible.
9. Point Source SO2 Emissions on Maui
    Comment 1: Puunene Mill emissions will go down.
    One commenter (HC&S) disagreed with the EPA's projections that 
point source emissions of SO2 on Maui will increase during 
the first planning period ending in 2018, and that much of this 
increase will come from the Puunene Mill (with projected emissions of 
469 tons in 2018). The commenter noted that SO2 emissions 
from the Puunene Mill are driven by coal consumption because bagasse, 
the primary fuel at the facility, contains negligible amounts of sulfur 
and fuel oil is a very small fraction of annual heat input. According 
to the commenter, SO2 emissions from the facility averaged 
409 tons per year from 2006 to 2011, and this average was inflated by 
historic lows in sugar production in 2008 and 2009. The commenter 
expects that sugar production will continue to rebound and coal 
consumption will continue to decline so that SO2 emissions 
from the facility will be in the range of 280-300 tpy by 2018. Based on 
this, the commenter believes that SO2 emissions from point 
sources in Maui are more likely to decrease by 2018 rather than to 
increase as projected in the proposal, resulting in a larger decrease 
in overall anthropogenic emissions than projected and in further 
improvements in visibility at Haleakala NP.
    Response 1: The EPA appreciates this new information and believes 
that it supports our conclusion that it is not reasonable to require 
additional SO2 reductions on Maui at this time. The EPA 
encourages the commenter to work closely with Hawaii DOH as they 
develop emission inventory projections for future updates of the 
Regional Haze plan to ensure that the best information is used in 
making emission inventory projections.
    Comment 2: Reasonable progress analysis not warranted for Kahului.
    Although supporting the EPA's conclusion that the Kahului facility 
should not be subject to controls, one commenter (MECO) disagreed that 
a reasonable progress analysis was warranted for the Kahului facility. 
According to the commenter, the EPA's finding that prevailing winds 
should transport Kahului's emissions away from Haleakala NP (citing 77 
FR 31709) is a sufficient basis for the EPA to make a determination 
that controls are not required at Kahului; and no additional analysis 
should be necessary. The commenter stated that the visibility modeling 
upon which the EPA based its decision to conduct the reasonable 
progress analysis was based on conservative assumptions and unlikely to 
occur in normal operations (citing 77 FR 31709), and that Kahului's 
actual contribution to visibility impairment at Haleakala NP is likely 
considerably less and may not even be in the range of perceptibility. 
For this reason, the commenter believes that the EPA should have 
determined that Kahului should not be subject to reasonable progress 
requirements during this planning period.
    Response 2: The EPA believes it was reasonable to consider 
additional SO2 controls at the Kahului power plant, given 
four concerns: significant visibility impairment from sulfur compounds 
at Haleakala NP on both the worst and best visibility days, a projected 
increase in point source SO2 emissions during the planning 
period, the very high SO2 emissions from the facility, and 
significant modeled visibility impacts from the plant on Haleakala. 
However, based on our analysis, we determined that no additional 
controls for Kahului are reasonable at this time.
10. Reasonable Progress Analysis for SO2 Emissions on Maui
    Comment 1: Concurrence with proposal.
    One commenter (HC&S) concurred with the EPA's analysis showing that 
existing requirements under the Act will result in net reductions of 
anthropogenic emissions of SO2 on Maui during the first 
planning period (ending in 2018) and that it is therefore reasonable to 
assume that visibility at Haleakala NP on the worst visibility days 
will improve and on the best visibility days is not getting worse. In 
addition, the commenter concurred with the EPA's proposal to find that 
the projected level of emissions reduction is reasonable for this 
planning period. (See Section II.A.9. of this notice for the 
commenter's comments and our responses on projected point source 
SO2 emissions on Maui.)
    Response 1: The EPA appreciates the supportive comment. With 
anthropogenic emissions decreasing substantially in the first planning 
period, it is reasonable to assume that visibility impairment due to 
anthropogenic sources will improve during the planning period.
    Comment 2: Cap emissions from Kahului and Maalaea.
    One commenter (NPS) recommended that the EPA establish an 
SO2 emissions cap for the Kahului Power Plant and the 
Maalaea Generating Station on Maui, which could be met by lower sulfur 
fuel, reduced plant utilization, or increased use of biofuels. The 
commenter noted that under Hawaii's Clean Energy Bill, SO2 
emissions from these two facilities are projected to be reduced by 83 
percent by 2018. The commenter believes that a federally enforceable 
SO2 emissions cap for the Kahului and Maalaea facilities is 
justified for reasonable progress and would provide incentive for early 
implementation of the Clean Energy Bill objectives. The commenter added 
that the visibility modeling demonstrated that the Kahului Power Plant 
contributes to visibility impairment at Haleakala NP, and that the EPA 
determined that costs for 1 percent sulfur fuel would be lower for 
Kahului Power Plant ($4,200 per ton) than for the electric generating 
facilities on the Big Island ($5,587 per ton) that are required to meet 
an SO2 emissions limit. In addition, the commenter (NPS) 
disagreed with the EPA's reliance on the projected reductions in 
SO2 emissions from marine shipping under the North American 
Emissions Control Area agreement (that requires lower sulfur fuels for 
marine shipping within 200 nautical miles of the U.S. coastline 
beginning in August 2012) to offset emissions from the electric 
generating facilities on Maui. The commenter contended that there is 
considerable uncertainty in the levels of baseline and future marine 
traffic and the extent that these emissions should be included in the 
island inventory.
    Response 2: EPA disagrees with this comment. As explained in our 
proposal, due to the federally enforceable emissions reductions from 
mobile sources (including shipping), total anthropogenic SO2 
emissions on Maui are projected to decrease by nearly 8 percent between 
2005 and 2018 without additional control measures. We also expect 
emissions reductions from the

[[Page 61494]]

Hawaii Clean Energy Bill, but we do not need to make those reductions 
federally enforceable in order to show reasonable progress. In 
addition, HC&S has indicated in their comments on the proposal that 
their 2018 emissions should be significantly lower than indicated on 
Table V-2 of the TSD.\48\ Even without these additional reductions in 
point source emissions, anthropogenic SO2 emissions on Maui 
are projected to decrease by nearly 8 percent between 2005 and 2018.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \48\ See written comments on proposal from Alexander and Baldwin 
Company, July 2, 2012, Document No. EPA-R09-OAR-2012-0345-0019.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

11. Agricultural Burning on Maui
    Comment 1: Cane burning impacts visibility and should be addressed.
    Eight commenters expressed concern over emissions from agricultural 
burning in the sugarcane fields of Maui. Four of these commenters 
(Earthjustice, FHNP, Maui Tomorrow, Parsons) specifically questioned 
EPA's conclusions that there is no evidence of agricultural burning 
contributing to haze at Class I areas and/or that no further controls 
on agricultural burning are reasonable at this time (77 FR 31715, May 
29, 2012). In contrast, one commenter (HC&S) concurred with EPA's 
findings.
    One commenter (Earthjustice) indicated that the community's direct 
experience and testimony have provided evidence that agricultural 
burning contributes to haze at Class I areas, specifically that smoke 
plumes from agricultural burning impair visibility within Haleakala NP 
when meteorological conditions are not optimal and that the smoke 
directly impairs the views of park visitors of the panoramic vistas of 
the island, coastlines, and ocean from the park, which is an integral 
part of the park experience. Given the serious community concerns, the 
commenter urged EPA to undertake a full reasonable progress analysis 
for this pollution source and adopt a plan incorporating best practices 
for controlling emissions.
    Another commenter (Parsons) stated that on many days, his view of 
Haleakala NP from Wailuku is obscured by a cloud of cane smoke through 
the central valley of Maui, and that views from Haleakala NP would 
certainly be impacted likewise. The commenter expressed disappointment 
that EPA has done little to address environmental and health concerns 
over the ongoing practice of open burning of sugar cane despite 
considerable public outcry.
    One commenter (FHNP) indicated that a significant portion of the 
visitor experience of Haleakala NP is the enjoyment of views from 
within the park to places outside of the park. The commenter stated 
that it is the nature of human perception to be acutely aware of 
changes in scenery that are not ``natural'' even when the events are 
short lived or spatially limited. The commenter believes that such 
events, particularly agricultural burning in the cane fields, may not 
be adequately captured by EPA's analysis and methodology. According to 
the commenter, these agricultural burning events have a significant 
negative impact on the view from Haleakala NP toward the West Maui 
Mountains and other surrounding areas. The commenter added that it is 
intuitively obvious that burning such large quantities of vegetation in 
close proximity to a Class I area will have some impact on the viewing 
quality in and from that Class I area, even though the analysis showed 
no direct correlation.
    Another commenter (Maui Tomorrow) stated that cane field burning 
produces billowing clouds laden with toxins and fine particulates, 
which can blot out the sky and the natural vistas, and cause or 
contribute to a range of severe respiratory and cardiovascular illness. 
While recognizing that the major contributor to visibility impairment 
in Haleakala NP is volcanic emissions, the commenter quoted the NPS as 
saying ``sugar cane processing facilities and field burning * * * can 
affect air quality and visibility'' in Haleakala NP. The commenter 
noted that Hawaii has ``no smoke management plan as such'' (citing 77 
FR 31715, May 29, 2012) and contended that cane field burning is among 
the largest anthropogenic sources of nitrogen dioxide, SO2, 
VOC and PM pollution on Maui, concluding that it makes little sense to 
rule out practical and achievable limitations on emissions from 
stopping the burning of cane fields. The commenter added that the fact 
that SO2 is the dominant visibility-impairing pollutant in 
Hawaii's two Class I areas does not mean that the agency should ignore 
the contribution of other pollutants at one of them.
    This commenter also stated that work published by a National 
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) researcher that EPA cites 
in its TSD indicates that ``Haleakala NP has greater impacts'' from 
smoke as compared to Hawaii Volcanoes NP (citing TSD quotations of M. 
Pitchford). According to the commenter, that study notes that, based on 
data from the Haleakala monitoring station, ``about half of worst-case 
days are associated'' with factors other than volcanic emissions, 
including smoke, and that recommendations for follow-on work include 
examination of the smoke factor with respect to burning (e.g., 
agricultural) events. The commenter concluded by stating that EPA's 
proposed determination to not restrict cane field burning on Maui under 
the Regional Haze FIP is not reasonable and urging EPA to reconsider 
its position in light of the available evidence.
    Another commenter (HC&S) noted that agricultural burning in Hawaii 
is regulated under a permit program, and widespread and persistent haze 
conditions are used as a criterion for establishment of a ``no-burn'' 
period by the Hawaii DOH. According to the commenter, ``no-burn'' 
periods established by the DOH are most likely to occur on days when 
volcanic smog from the volcano is present on the island, and therefore 
the potential for visibility impacts at Haleakala NP from agricultural 
burning should be lowest on the worst visibility days. The commenter 
indicated that under its agricultural burning permit, HC&S operates an 
extensive network of weather stations in and around the plantation that 
provide real-time data both to burn managers and to a meteorological 
consultant who prepares daily micro-forecasts of anticipated weather 
conditions, expected smoke dispersion, and optimum times and locations 
for burning. On occasions when existing air quality or expected smoke 
dispersion have been judged to be unsuitable for burning, HC&S has 
elected not to burn even when a ``no-burn'' period has not been 
established by the Hawaii DOH.
    This commenter added that agricultural burning at HC&S is conducted 
in a manner largely consistent with the Tier 2 Smoke Management Program 
(SMP) recommended by the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Agricultural 
Air Quality Task Force (AAQTF) in its Air Quality Policy on 
Agricultural Burning. According to the commenter, the AAQTF policy 
allows the use of fire as an accepted management practice, consistent 
with good science, to maintain agricultural production while protecting 
public health and welfare by mitigating the impacts of air pollution 
emissions on air quality and visibility, and the Tier 2 SMP is designed 
for areas where agricultural burning contributes to particulate matter 
NAAQS violations or visibility impairment in Class I Federal areas--
neither of which is the case on Maui. On this basis, the commenter 
disagreed with the statement

[[Page 61495]]

in the proposal that ``there is no smoke management plan as such'' in 
Hawaii.
    The commenter also pointed out that the proposal indicated that by 
far the biggest contributor to visibility impairment in Hawaiian Class 
I areas is SO2 emissions from the Kilauea Volcano, with 
emissions of NOX and coarse mass as secondary concerns, each 
contributing less than 10 percent of visibility impairment at Haleakala 
NP. According to the commenter, agricultural burning accounts for only 
about 3 to 4 percent of anthropogenic NOX emissions on Maui, 
so the overall visibility impact of NOX emissions from 
sugarcane burning is clearly negligible. The commenter noted that 
coarse mass emissions may result in part from agricultural burning but 
also arise from construction sites, roads, and other fugitive dust 
sources. Due to what the commenter termed the uncertainty with regard 
to contributions from various sources of coarse mass and the secondary 
importance of this pollutant with respect to visibility impairment at 
Haleakala NP, the commenter concurred with EPA's conclusion that it is 
not reasonable to recommend emission control measures for coarse mass 
at this time.
    Noting that it has been postulated that elemental and organic 
carbon levels measured at the HALE site may be indicative of visibility 
impacts from agricultural burning, the same commenter asserted that the 
DOH's Haleakala National Park Visibility Assessment did not identify a 
significant correlation between measurements at this site and sugarcane 
burns, and suggested that this site may be impacted by small nearby 
emission sources rather than, or in addition to, agricultural burning. 
The commenter also stated that while organic carbon may also originate 
in part from agricultural burning, recent monitoring at HACR site has 
shown low contributions to visibility impairment from both organic and 
elemental carbon, and even at the HALE site (outside of the park) the 
contribution of elemental and organic carbon sources to visibility 
impairment is relatively low (and only a portion of this contribution 
is attributable to agricultural burning). On this basis, the commenter 
concluded that efforts to reduce visibility impacts of organic carbon 
from agricultural burning would appear to be unwarranted.
    Two of the commenters (Earthjustice, Parsons) suggested that EPA 
install additional air quality monitors to assess the impacts from 
sugar cane burning. See section II.A.11. of this document for more on 
this topic.
    Response 1: While not directly relevant to this rulemaking, EPA 
agrees that exposure to emissions from agricultural burning can pose 
health concerns. We note, however, that the PM2.5 monitor in 
Kihei, typically downwind from the burning, has never recorded an 
exceedance of the health-based NAAQS. In addition, Hawaii DOH has 
promulgated a series of rules regulating agricultural burning, several 
of which have been approved into the Hawaii SIP.\49\ EPA recently 
determined that the Hawaii SIP ``include[s] enforceable emission 
limitations and other control measures, means, or techniques * * * as 
may be necessary or appropriate to meet the applicable requirements of 
[the CAA]'' with respect to the 1997 and 2006 p.m.2.5 NAAQS, 
as well as the 1997 ozone NAAQS.\50\ EPA will continue to work with 
Hawaii DOH to ensure that the state's agricultural burning rules and 
permit program meet all applicable CAA requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \49\ See 40 CFR 52.620(c).
    \50\ See 77 FR 47530, August 9, 2012.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With respect to the visibility impacts of agricultural burning, we 
reaffirm that there is no evidence that smoke from the burns is causing 
visibility impairment in the park. If smoke from the burns were 
transporting up to the park, the HACR monitor (inside the park, close 
to the park entrance) would measure significant levels of black carbon 
along with significant levels of organic compounds when the sugar cane 
fields were burning. But there are no significant levels of organic 
compounds and black carbon at the HACR IMPROVE monitor in the park on 
those days when burning took place. There were significant levels of 
these pollutants measured at HALE (outside the park and down the 
mountain, closer to the isthmus where the cane is grown) on particular 
days, but those pollutants were not found in significant levels at HACR 
for those same days.\51\ It is unclear what caused the high readings at 
HALE, but, given that the HACR monitor did not register similarly high 
readings, it is clear that the emissions causing the high readings did 
not reach the park from the direction of the HALE monitor, which is 
northwest of Haleakala. Without clear evidence that agricultural 
burning is impacting the Class I area, EPA does not consider it 
reasonable to impose additional controls as part of the Regional Haze 
plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \51\ TSD pp 17-20.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regarding Maui Now's reference to the comments by Marc Pitchford, 
we note that Dr. Pitchford found that Haleakala NP has comparatively 
more impact from all non-volcano factors, including smoke, than Hawaii 
Volcanoes NP.\52\ Because Haleakala NP has a comparatively smaller 
impact from the volcano, the impact from the other factors (as a 
percentage) is larger. Dr. Pitchford recommends further examination of 
the smoke factor in addition to his recommendation of further 
examination of the attribution of dust, coarse mass, and the 
``nitrate'' and ``sulfate/nitrate'' factors. EPA agrees that further 
examination of each of these factors will be useful for the development 
of the next plan. Dr. Pitchford's work was based on the Haleakala 
National Park (HALE) IMPROVE site. EPA believes that future work should 
be based on the more representative Haleakala Crater (HACR) IMPROVE 
site, and the focus of the work should be on the factors which 
contribute most to the impairment of visibility at that site.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \52\ TSD at 34.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The regional haze plan is designed to improve visibility within the 
park itself. Smoke outside of the park would certainly impact the views 
from the park, but, as explained below, views outside of the park are 
not covered under the regional haze program.
    While not relevant to this rulemaking, EPA agrees with the 
commenters that additional monitoring of smoke impacts and evaluating 
its impact on the public would be helpful. We are working with Hawaii 
DOH to identify funding to install a new PM2.5 monitor on 
Maui that will be located on the isthmus between the mountains on Maui 
where the cane is grown and where many people live.
    Comment 2: TSD Sections II.A and II.B and the contribution of 
agricultural burning to visibility impairment.
    One commenter (Maui Tomorrow) noted that the preamble to the 
proposed FIP cites sections II.A, II.B, and III.B of the TSD in support 
of EPA's assertion that there is ``no evidence of agricultural burning 
contributing to haze at Class I areas'' (citing 77 FR 31715, footnote 
75, May 29, 2012). The commenter stated that section II.B is germane 
only to Hawaii Volcanoes NP, not to Haleakala NP. The commenter also 
contended that section II.A appears to establish the opposite result 
from that which EPA asserted in its proposed determination, namely 
that, at least in Maui, the contribution of organic carbon and 
elemental carbon pollution to visibility impairment is significant. 
According to the commenter, sugar cane burning in Maui is a principal 
contributor of these pollutants.
    According to the commenter, readings from the HALE monitor, from 
which

[[Page 61496]]

baseline year emissions for the 2001-2004 period were obtained, imply 
that 10 percent of visibility degradation derives from organic carbon 
pollution and 5 percent from elemental carbon (citing TSD pp. 12-13). 
While conceding that for recent years the HACR monitor has reported 
lower levels of organic and elemental Carbon readings than at the HALE 
monitor, the commenter asserted that even if the organic and elemental 
Carbon pollution contribution from agricultural burning and other 
sources to visibility degradation at Haleakala NP were half of that 
indicated from the HALE monitor readings (7.5 percent of visibility 
impairment rather than 15 percent) this would still be significant. The 
commenter added that EPA has provided no reason for deeming such an 
organic and elemental carbon contribution to regional haze over 
Haleakala NP to be of no concern whatever. According to the commenter, 
EPA indicated that recent monitoring at the HACR monitor shows a ``low 
contribution to visibility impairment from organic and elemental 
carbon'' (citing TSD p. 55), but fails to define what EPA means by 
``low contribution.''
    Response 2: EPA finds a lack of correlation between smoke measured 
at HALE and agricultural burning days. The measured levels of smoke-
related compounds within the park (as monitored at HACR) indicate that 
there is no significant impact from smoke.\53\ For example, the 
measured level of organic carbon is below 1 [micro]g/m3, and 
the measured elemental carbon is below 0.2 [micro]g/m3 for 
each day of 2009 and 2010.\54\ The contribution to light extinction 
from organic carbon is below 2.7 Mm-1,\55\ and the contribution to 
light extinction from elemental carbon is light extinction is below 1.4 
Mm-1. For the same time period, the light extinction from all compounds 
ranges from 20 to 70 Mm-1 on the 20 percent worst days.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \53\ TSD pp. 73-74.
    \54\ TSD pp. 17-20.
    \55\ Inverse megameter (Mm-1) is a measurement of light 
extinction; the amount of light lost as it travels over one million 
meters. This unit is most useful for relating visibility directly to 
particle concentrations in the air.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comment 3: Monitoring for agricultural burning.
    A number of commenters (Earthjustice, NPS, Parsons) provided 
comments related to air quality monitoring for pollutants released by 
agricultural burning on Maui.
    One commenter (Parsons) noted that there is only one monitoring 
station on Maui, located in North Kihei, and that it tests for only 
PM2.5 and not for NOX or SO2. The 
commenter believes that the overall air quality of Maui may be better 
addressed by installation of additional air quality monitoring devices 
to more accurately assess the harmful materials being emitted from cane 
burning and other sources.
    One commenter (NPS) noted that there was considerable comment at 
the July 31, 2012 public hearing on the impact of cane burning on 
public health on Maui and visibility at Haleakala NP. The commenter 
stated that while there are days in the IMPROVE record at HALE with 
elevated organic and elemental carbon suggestive of biomass burning, 
the monitor location is not well suited for evaluating smoke impacts 
from cane burning. Accordingly, the commenter recommended that if EPA's 
objective is to characterize smoke incidence and potential health 
impacts from smoke, then a PM monitor sited closer to populated areas 
would be more useful than the HALE monitor.
    Another commenter (Earthjustice) stated that EPA must provide the 
necessary monitors, particularly for PM2.5, so that it can 
conduct deeper analysis and better informed determinations related to 
emissions from agricultural burning going forward. According to the 
commenter, EPA recognizes that the HALE monitoring site located outside 
of the Haleakala NP has higher levels of organic and elemental carbon 
than the HACR monitoring site located at higher elevation, which 
generally confirms the effects of agricultural burning (citing 77 FR 
31716, May 29, 2012). Yet, the commenter believes neither location is 
suited for monitoring the impacts on the vistas from the park and this 
lack of data impedes reasonable progress on the impacts of agricultural 
burning on visibility and public health. The commenter asserted that 
EPA must develop a monitoring strategy as required by 40 CFR 
51.308(d)(4) to address this deficiency.
    Response 3: EPA agrees that additional monitoring for particulate 
matter on Maui would be helpful and is working with DOH to identify the 
resources needed to place a new PM2.5 monitor on the island 
to be in a populated area on the isthmus near sugar cane fields.
    EPA disagrees with the commenter and finds that HACR is sufficient 
for monitoring visibility within the park. EPA has reviewed the 
monitoring data and the Hawaii DOH analysis of data collected at the 
HALE and HACR monitoring sites.\56\ Based on this review, EPA has found 
the HACR IMPROVE monitoring site to be representative of visibility 
conditions within the Haleakala NP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \56\ TSD p. 69-72.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comment 4: Other issues related to agricultural burning on Maui.
    One commenter (Parsons) asserted that open field burning of sugar 
cane amounts to an issue of environmental justice. According to the 
commenter, the health and welfare of the community are deemed 
secondary, and are subjugated to claims of the plantation's economic 
viability if forced to harvest without burning.
    One commenter stated that cane burning hurts Maui's economy and 
health. Another commenter asserted that emissions from cane burning (as 
well as HC&S smokestacks and fugitive dust from the sugarcane fields) 
threaten public health, visibility and enjoyment of Haleakala NP, and 
the health of the ocean environment and coral reefs.
    Response 4: We appreciate the commenters' concerns regarding the 
negative health impacts of emissions from cane burning. We agree that 
the same pollutants that contribute to visibility impairment can also 
harm public health. However, for purposes of this action, we are not 
authorized to consider these health impacts, and we have not done so. 
However, as noted above, EPA is working with Hawaii DOH to identify the 
resources needed to place a new PM2.5 monitor on the Island 
of Maui to be sited in a populated area of the isthmus near sugar cane 
fields.
    Regarding environmental justice, as explained in our proposal, 
Executive Order 12898,\57\ 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. Our responsibilities under the Executive Order must be 
exercised in the context of our statutory authority under the CAA, 
which, in this case, is limited to addressing visibility impairment in 
Class I areas. Without evidence that agricultural burning is impacting 
visibility in Haleakala, it is not reasonable for us impose 
restrictions on agricultural burning as part of this rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \57\ 59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994.

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

[[Page 61497]]

12. Integral Vista Issue and Reasonably Attributable Visibility 
Impairment (RAVI)
    Comment: One commenter requested contact information and supporting 
documents for the FLM finding of no integral vista in Hawaii under 
RAVI. The commenter assumed that the lack of finding of integral vista 
is the result of a lack of appropriate or timely responsiveness by the 
FLM.
    The commenter stated that most Maui residents and visitors to 
Haleakala NP consider the panorama from within Haleakala NP to areas 
outside of Haleakala NP (the view of the peaks of Mauna Kea and Mauna 
Loa on the Big Island, the views of Maui's central valley, the views of 
the West Maui Mountains, and the surrounding oceans) an integral vista 
within the intent of the federal definition.
    Response: Pursuant to EPA's regulations governing RAVI, the FLMs 
had the opportunity to identify any integral vistas on or before 
December 31, 1985. No such vista was identified for Haleakala NP. In 
promulgating the RHR in 1999, EPA declined to extend the integral vista 
concept to the regional haze program because:

* * * regional haze is caused by a multitude of sources across a 
broad geographic area, and it can create a uniform haze in all 
directions. The regional haze program is designed to bring about 
improvements in regional visibility for the range of possible views 
of sky and terrain found in any Class I area. Accordingly, the 
program does not protect only specific views from a Class I area. To 
address haze, regional strategies will be needed, and emissions 
resulting from these strategies are expected to improve visibility 
across a broad region, not just within a Class I area. Thus, 
although the regional haze program does not include a specific 
provision regarding integral vistas, the long-term strategies 
developed to meet reasonable progress goals would also serve to 
improve scenic vistas viewed from and within Class I areas.\58\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \58\ 64 FR 35734 (July 1, 1999).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

13. Comments on the Monitoring Strategy
    Comment 1: HALE and HACR.
    One commenter (NPS) agreed with EPA's proposal to use the IMPROVE 
monitor at the Haleakala Crater (HACR) for future regional haze 
planning efforts because it more representative of the park's air 
quality and visibility than the HALE monitor, which is located at much 
lower elevation than much of the park area. The commenter has evaluated 
the IMPROVE data for both monitors for the period 2007 through 2010 and 
found the following: (a) sulfate concentrations are elevated on the 
same days at the two monitors, indicating that volcanic emissions from 
the Kilauea Volcano are impacting both monitors concurrently, although 
the concentrations are lower at the higher elevation (HACR) site; (b) 
in general, concentrations of nitrate, organic carbon, elemental 
carbon, and seasalt are lower at the higher elevation site; and (c) 
concentrations of soil and coarse matter at times are higher at the 
higher elevation site, suggesting possible international transport. The 
commenter is consulting with the IMPROVE network representatives to 
assure a representative data record for the regional haze process.
    Another commenter (HC&S) also concurred with the conclusion that 
the HACR site is more representative of visibility conditions within 
the park and supported the proposal to base future regional haze 
planning efforts on data collected at the HACR site. This commenter 
stated that it was recognized as far back as 2005 that the HALE site 
was not appropriate for monitoring visibility at Haleakala NP since it 
is located well outside the park, is at a much lower elevation than a 
majority of the area of the park, and is impacted by emissions sources 
which are less likely to cause visibility impacts within the park.
    However, a third commenter (Maui Tomorrow) stated that EPA's 
conclusion that the HACR monitoring data are more representative of 
visibility conditions within the Haleakala NP (citing TSD p. 74) is 
based on a misreading of studies from the Hawaii DOH. According to the 
commenter, the relevant Hawaii DOH study concludes only that, ``The 
available data indicates that HACR IMPROVE monitoring data could be 
more representative of visibility conditions within the Haleakala 
National Park.'' \59\ The commenter indicated that the DOH also noted 
that, for one cane field burn undertaken by HC&S in 2007, the HACR 
monitor registered higher organic and elemental carbon increases than 
were recorded at the HALE monitor, and that the Department postulated 
that this and one other set of readings--showing higher impacts from 
agricultural and other burning inside Haleakala than outside the park--
were ``not representative'' of HACR readings. Despite this, the 
commenter concludes that EPA's assertion that the higher readings from 
HALE are less representative than those at HACR do not reflect the 
careful views of the Hawaii DOH.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \59\ Citing Comparison of Haleakala NP HALE1 and HACR1 IMPROVE 
Monitoring Site 2007-2008 Data Sets, March 30, 2012, State of 
Hawaii, Department of Health, Clean Air Branch, p. 14. Document No. 
EPA-R09-OAR-2012-0345-0005-C2f.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Response 1: EPA appreciates NPS's evaluation of the IMPROVE data 
for both the HALE and HACR monitors for the period 2007 through 2010, 
and agrees with their recommendation to use Haleakala Crater (HACR) for 
future regional haze planning efforts. EPA agrees (with Maui Tomorrow) 
that EPA's summary of DOH's study findings does not fully capture the 
depth of this careful analysis. Nevertheless, EPA believes that the 
Hawaii DOH's study's conclusion that ``[t]he available data indicates 
that HACR IMPROVE monitoring data could be more representative of 
visibility conditions within the Haleakala National Park'' is 
consistent with EPA's support for the use of the IMPROVE monitor at the 
Haleakala Crater (HACR) for future regional haze planning efforts 
because it more representative of the park's air quality and visibility 
than the HALE monitor.
    Comment 2: Use image-based monitoring.
    One commenter (FHNP) recommended that EPA use image-based 
techniques for monitoring, such as described by Graves and Neuman, 
Using Visibility Cameras to Estimate Atmospheric Light Extinction, IEEE 
Workshop on Applications of Computer Vision, 2011. According to the 
commenter, the University of Hawaii Institute for Astronomy already has 
several cameras, including one that is located near the summit and 
directed into Haleakala NP, and the Institute and the Mees Observatory 
take regular measurements of the atmospheric conditions at the summit 
of Haleakala. The commenter believes that these resources should be 
used to monitor progress toward the goal of reducing haze in Haleakala 
NP.
    Response 2: EPA appreciates the thought that went into this 
comment. This is an interesting approach and the webcam pictures may be 
useful as supplemental information to understanding the visibility at 
Haleakala; we would encourage its use in the development of the next 
plan. However, we caution that this is a poor metric to use for 
tracking trends towards natural conditions. Visibility derived from 
photographs is complicated by the varied shading of the scene from 
clouds, which can cause high uncertainties. In addition, the relative 
humidity is not corrected for nor measured. Changing relative humidity 
will cause large changes in light extinction/visibility, further adding 
to the uncertainty in the visibility measurement and interpretation.

[[Page 61498]]

14. Other Comments
    Comment 1: Broaden EPA's evaluation.
    One commenter (Parsons) expressed understanding that the Regional 
Haze FIP for Hawaii considers only some of the overall factors and 
parameters of emissions into Maui's atmosphere. Nevertheless, the 
commenter urged EPA to broaden its determination of relevant impacts to 
Maui's air quality and regional haze to include the other common-sense 
environmental factors mentioned in his comments: (a) emissions from 
MECO's Kahului and Maalaea generating facilities, (b) emissions from 
HC&S's Puunene Mill, (c) HC&S's open field burning, and (d) fugitive 
dust.
    Response 1: We appreciate the commenter's concerns about air 
quality generally. However, our authority in promulgating this FIP is 
limited by the provisions of the CAA and the RHR. Specifically, with 
regard to reasonable progress, we considered the following factors 
established in section 169A of the CAA and in EPA's RHR at 40 CFR 
51.308(d)(1)(i)(A) and (B): (a) The costs of compliance; (b) the time 
necessary for compliance; (c) the energy and non-air quality 
environmental impacts of compliance; (d) the remaining useful life of 
any potentially affected sources, and (e) uniform rate of improvement 
in visibility and the emission reduction measures needed to achieve it. 
Based on our analysis of these factors, we determined that, for the 
sources named by the commenter, no additional controls were reasonable 
at this time.
    Comment 2: Government control.
    One commenter argued that volcanic emissions are the cause of 
visibility impairment in Hawaii, but EPA will use it as a vehicle to 
put sanctions on carbon dioxide, smoke from sugarcane harvesting, and 
methane emitted by cattle at Haleakala Ranch even though these 
substances are emitted naturally from breathing, burning, and bovine 
flatulence. The commenter objected to the imposition of additional 
government control. The commenter stated that Hawaiians should tell EPA 
to take its ``unattainable goals back to Washington and spare the 
Taxpayer expense.''
    Response 2: This rulemaking is required to meet requirements 
established in the CAA amendments of 1990 to move toward eliminating 
anthropogenic visibility impairment at Class I areas. It is not related 
to climate change. EPA is not proposing any controls on breathing, 
burning, or bovine flatulence as part of this rulemaking.
    Comment 3: Public hearing process.
    One commenter asked that EPA provide details regarding the notice 
requirements for the public hearings. The commenter believes that the 
public hearing was held too soon to give the public a proper 
opportunity to review the plan and the technical support documents. The 
commenter requested that EPA confirm that it had complied with the 
notice requirements.
    Response 3: In promulgating a FIP under CAA section 110(c), EPA is 
required to: ``give interested persons an opportunity for the oral 
presentation of data, views, or arguments, in addition to an 
opportunity to make written submissions; keep a transcript of any oral 
presentation; and keep the record of such proceeding open for thirty 
days after completion of the proceeding to provide an opportunity for 
submission of rebuttal and supplementary information.'' \60\ In this 
case, EPA held two public hearings on its proposed FIP, one on Maui on 
May 31, 2012 and one on the Big Island on June 1, 2012. These hearings 
were announced in the Federal Register on May 11, 2012,\61\ and a pre-
publication version of the NPRM was posted on EPA's Web site on May 16, 
2012. The proposal was published in the Federal Register on May 29, 
2012,\62\ and public comments were accepted through July 2, 2012.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \60\ See CAA section 307(d).
    \61\ 77 FR 27671.
    \62\ 77 FR 31692.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Comments From the Public Hearings

    EPA received written and oral comments on the proposal at the 
public hearings. Representatives of the following organizations 
provided oral or written comments: Maui Tomorrow Foundation (Maui 
Tomorrow), Alexander and Baldwin, parent company of Hawaii Commercial 
and Sugar (HC&S), the Ko Hawaii Pae Aina people, and Syntex Global 
(Syntex). Nineteen private citizens also provided oral or written 
comments at the public hearings. A summary of the major comments and 
EPA's responses are provided below.
    Comment 1: Visibility impacts of cane burning.
    The majority of the commenters at the hearing on Maui expressed 
concern that the proposed FIP does not require an end to the practice 
of agricultural burning in the sugar cane fields. These commenters 
generally indicated that they have witnessed thick smoke from cane 
burning that clearly impairs visibility, disrupting the scenic vistas 
on the island. For example, one commenter stated that during periods of 
cane burning, he cannot see Kihei from Haleakala NP or see the park 
from Kihei, and another similarly asserted that cane burning obscures 
the view from the top of Haleakala, especially over the valley. One 
commenter indicated that as many as three fires are lit in the morning, 
creating smoke plumes that fill the sky, and added that after the 
plumes of smoke dissipate, a brown film hangs in the air just under the 
inversion layer of the mountains. Seven of the commenters specifically 
objected to the proposed determination that no further controls on 
agricultural burning are reasonable at this time. One of these 
requested that EPA explore pollution controls to mitigate the impact of 
organic carbon from agricultural burning on visibility at Haleakala NP.
    One of the commenters noted that EPA's analysis acknowledges that 
agricultural fire emissions occur over roughly 30,000 acres of cane 
fields, and added that this is among the largest anthropogenic sources 
of SO2, VOCs and PM on Maui. (Another commenter indicated 
that the correct figure for cane fields in production is 35,000 acres.) 
This commenter alleged that the NPS has stated that sugar cane 
processing and field burning can affect air quality and visibility in 
Haleakala NP. The commenter also said that work published by NOAA 
researchers indicates that Haleakala NP has greater impacts from smoke 
as compared to Hawaii Volcanoes NP, and that about half of worst-case 
days are associated with factors other than volcanic emissions, 
including smoke.
    Another commenter, citing a study by University of Hawaii 
meteorology Professor Andrews Daniels, stated that an average cane 
burning event releases approximately 200 to 600 tons of PM as compared 
to the estimated 700 tons of PM emitted each day in the Los Angeles 
basin. This commenter believes that PM should be considered in EPA's 
evaluation.
    Response 1: EPA understands the concern of the commenters about the 
local visibility impacts of agricultural burning. However, as detailed 
in the responses above (II.A.11), the Regional Haze Rule is designed to 
protect visibility inside the National Park. EPA has no evidence that 
agricultural burning is impacting visibility inside the park; 
therefore, we do not consider it appropriate to restrict agricultural 
burning as part of this rulemaking.
    Comment 2: Health effects of cane burning.
    Many of the commenters at the Maui hearing expressed concern over 
the health effects that they believe result from PM and toxic 
pollutants released by cane burning on the island. Several

[[Page 61499]]

of these commenters noted that the plastic irrigation pipes are burned 
along with the cane waste, adding to the toxic content of the smoke. A 
number of commenters indicated that the same pollutants that cause haze 
also have health effects, and that health and visibility effects are 
not separable.
    Some of these commenters recounted personal experiences with 
breathing problems or respiratory illness that they believe are 
attributable to smoke from cane burning. Other commenters expressed 
concern over the exposure that children are experiencing or the high 
incidence of asthma on the island. One commenter expressed dismay the 
sugar company is allowed to conduct cane burning simply to save money 
at, the commenter believes, the expense of public health.
    Another commenter noted that cane burning was stopped in Florida 
because of its negative health effects. One commenter recommended that 
agricultural burning on Maui be suspended immediately so that its 
health and environmental impact can be studied. The commenter suggested 
that the burden should be placed on the growers to prove that the 
practice is not hurting the environment.
    Response 2: As noted above, EPA agrees that exposure to emissions 
from agricultural burning can pose health concerns. We note however, 
that the PM2.5 monitor in Kihei, typically downwind from the 
burning, has never recorded an exceedance of the health-based NAAQS. In 
addition, Hawaii DOH has promulgated a series of rules regulating 
agricultural burning, several of which have been approved into the 
Hawaii SIP.\63\ EPA recently determined that the Hawaii SIP 
``include[s] enforceable emission limitations and other control 
measures, means, or techniques * * * as may be necessary or appropriate 
to meet the applicable requirements of [the CAA]'' with respect to the 
1997 and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS, as well as the 1997 ozone 
NAAQS.\64\ EPA will continue to work with Hawaii DOH to ensure that the 
state's agricultural burning rules and permit program meet all 
applicable CAA requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \63\ See 40 CFR Sec.  52.620(c).
    \64\ See 77 FR 47530.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With respect to the visibility impacts of cane burning, there is no 
evidence that smoke from the burns is causing visibility impairment in 
the park. Without clear evidence that agricultural burning is impacting 
the Class I area, EPA does not consider it reasonable to impose 
additional controls as part of the Regional Haze plan.
    Comment 3: Chemtrails.
    Six commenters at the Maui hearing expressed the belief that a 
``stratospheric aerosol geoengineering'' program that results in 
``chemtrails'' that drift over Hawaii are responsible for some, or 
much, of the visibility impairment that is occurring. In the most 
extensive comments on this topic, one commenter stated that these 
effects are scientifically observable. The commenter indicated that he 
is able to observe the progress of these chemtrails through satellite 
images. He also stated that measurements from rainwater collected on 
the North Shore of Maui showed 30 to 200 parts per billion of aluminum 
and lesser amounts of barium and strontium, which according to the 
commenter are the chemical fingerprints of chemtrails. The commenter 
suggested a program of aerial sampling of the clouds drifting over 
Hawaii, and requested that EPA add aluminum, barium and strontium to 
the materials that it routinely monitors.
    Another commenter similarly recommended that EPA broaden the scope 
of its analysis to include stratospheric aerosol spraying. The 
commenter believes that the waters of South Maui are impacted by such 
spraying, and that the spraying also causes health issues in people. 
The commenter also asserted that the spraying has introduced chemicals 
into the soils that are killing the plants in the area of Hana and 
Kipahulu.
    Response 3: The commenters provided no evidence that the visibility 
impairment in the Class I areas are caused by sources that are not 
captured using the IMPROVE monitors on Maui. EPA reaffirms our analysis 
of the causes of haze addressed in the TSD.
    EPA believes the current monitoring program is appropriate for 
Regional Haze. The IMPROVE program is a cooperative measurement effort 
governed by a steering committee composed of representatives from 
Federal and regional-state organizations. The IMPROVE monitoring 
program was established in 1985 to aid the creation of Federal and 
State implementation plans for the protection of visibility in Class I 
areas (156 national parks and wilderness areas) as stipulated in the 
1977 amendments to the Clean Air Act.
    The objectives of IMPROVE are:
    (a) To establish current visibility and aerosol conditions in 
mandatory class I areas;
    (b) To identify chemical species and emission sources responsible 
for existing man-made visibility impairment;
    (c) To document long-term trends for assessing progress towards the 
national visibility goal;
    (d) And with the enactment of the Regional Haze Rule, to provided 
regional haze monitoring representing all visibility-protected federal 
class I areas where practical.
    Aluminum and strontium are measured as part of the IMPROVE program. 
The summary statistics for all data, including aluminum and strontium 
measurements, at individual monitoring sites are available at the VIEWS 
monitoring sites data statistics site http://views.cira.colostate.edu/web/Statistics/SiteStatistics.aspx.
    Comment 4: Concerns about the BART ``exemptions'' and the 0.5 dv 
screening level.
    Six commenters objected to the plan's proposal to exempt six of the 
eight BART-eligible sources from BART review,\65\ stating that EPA 
should conduct full BART review of all BART-eligible sources until the 
amount of improvement needed to meet the uniform rate of progress (1.38 
dv) can be achieved through federally enforceable control measures. Two 
of the commenters specifically asserted that the screening level of 0.5 
dv used by EPA to determine which BART-eligible sources are subject to 
BART review is too high and should be reduced. One of the commenters 
stated that EPA has inappropriately used the highest allowable deciview 
threshold in the proposed FIP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \65\ Six of the eight BART-eligible sources had a less than 0.5 
deciview impact and so were exempted from BART. One of the remaining 
facilities, Hu Honua Bioenergy is no longer permitted to burn fossil 
fuels and is therefore also exempt from BART. This leaves one 
facility in Hawaii as subject to BART, the Kaneolehua Hill facility. 
See 77 FR 31704, 31705.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Without discussing the deciview screening level, another commenter 
similarly objected to the plan's proposal to exempt six of the eight 
identified BART eligible sources from further review under BART 
requirements. One commenter simply expressed opposition to exemptions 
and exceptions for some of Maui's major air polluters, and another 
objected to the exemptions made by EPA.
    Response 4: As EPA addressed in Section II.A.1 above, the plan is 
not required to meet the URP. As we addressed in Section II.A.5, above, 
we find that the 0.5 dv threshold is appropriate for determining which 
sources should be subject to BART in Hawaii.
    Comment 5: Control measures are insufficient.
    Eight commenters stated that the proposed control measures are not 
sufficient to ensure that reasonable progress is made during the first

[[Page 61500]]

planning period. The commenters believe that additional control 
measures are necessary.
    Response 5: EPA finds that the control measures are sufficient to 
ensure reasonable progress. Our reasoning is explained further in 
Sections II.A.7., II.A.8 and II.A.10. of this document.
    Comment 6: Uniform rate of progress.
    Six commenters objected to the proposal to determine that the 
uniform rate of progress for the implementation plan to attain natural 
conditions is not reasonable. The commenters asserted that this rate of 
progress is reasonable and that the FIP should require additional 
control measures as necessary to meet this rate of progress.
    One commenter (HC&S) stated that the methodology used to determine 
the proposed uniform rate of progress unnecessarily skews this value 
high. The commenter noted that EPA chose to exclude emissions from 
Kilauea Volcano when estimating natural visibility conditions while 
including these emissions in the estimate of baseline visibility 
conditions. As a result, the commenter asserted, the uniform rate of 
progress includes reductions in visibility impairment from 
anthropogenic sources that are sufficient to offset baseline emissions 
caused by the volcano. The commenter recommended that EPA consider 
adopting the methodology proposed by the Hawaii DOH to adjust the 
baseline visibility impairment to account for the impacts of the 
volcano as well as Asian dust. The commenter stated that if EPA were to 
use this adjustment in the calculation of the uniform rate of progress, 
the uniform rate of progress target for 2018 could essentially be 
achieved through the emissions reductions projected to occur by 2018 
under the proposed FIP.
    Response 6: This comment was addressed in Section II.A.1, above.
    Comment 7: Monitoring concerns.
    Seven commenters stated that since the HALE monitor's data were 
used for the baseline visibility assessment, that monitor must be kept 
in place or replaced with new monitors at that location so that long-
term visibility data comparable to baseline may be captured. Another 
commenter objected to plans to reduce the current ``measurements in 
place.''
    Five commenters contended that the Hawaii DOH and EPA are choosing 
data from different monitors to conclude that organic carbon 
agricultural burning does not contribute to visibility degradation 
although, according to the commenters, Table 11 of the proposed FIP 
clearly indicates that it does. (Four of the commenters also cited 
Table III-1 of the TSD.) The commenters added that the Hawaii DOH and 
EPA should not be moving and placing monitors selectively. The 
commenters asserted that based upon the data, it is not acceptable to 
find that there is no evidence of agricultural burning contributing to 
haze.
    One commenter stated that there is inadequate monitoring data 
backing up the proposal. The commenter indicated that emissions from 
cane burning, fugitive dust from agricultural operations, stack 
emissions from companies burning high-sulfur coal or emissions from 
bunker fuel are not monitored. The commenter believes that without such 
monitoring, there are no hard data to support the proposal, and no data 
on which to base public testimony.
    One commenter stated that the surrogate approach of measuring 
different substances in the air does not directly address visibility. 
The commenter noted that a nephelometer can be used to measure 
visibility directly, and that nephelometers operated at two different 
frequencies can distinguish between smoke and water in the air.\66\ The 
commenter concluded that the current monitoring instrumentation is 
inadequate and recommended that EPA set up two nephelometers in Kihei. 
The commenter believes that such a monitoring program would show that 
during cane burning days one cannot see Kihei from Haleakala or 
Haleakala from Kihei.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \66\ Nephelometers directly measure light scattered by aerosols 
and gases in a sampled air volume, and, therefore would not be 
useful to estimate the visibility over a distance, such as Kihei 
from Haleakala. Transmissometers directly measure the light 
transmission properties of the atmosphere along a several kilometer 
sight path.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Another commenter similarly indicated that if the monitor in its 
current location is unable to measure what one can easily see, the 
monitor is insufficient. The commenter believes that the monitor should 
be moved, additional monitors should be added or the monitor should be 
replaced by one that can collect better information. The commenter 
stated that the monitor does not account for Kipahulu, the area of the 
park at sea level in East Maui. The commenter indicated that HC&S has 
increased production since 2004, concluding that the data presented is 
not accurate. The commenter also stated that the 24-hour period of 
measurement does not adequately represent the 1 to 3 hour burning time.
    Response 7: Hawaii DOH, NPS and EPA are reviewing HALE and HACR 
data to develop methodologies to establish a 2000-2004 baseline 
estimate, which can be used to track continued progress at the site in 
a manner consistent with RHR requirements. Therefore, it is not 
necessary to continue operation of HALE to provide continuity with the 
baseline. In addition, since HACR is more representative of conditions 
in the park, and HALE is nearby, it is not a good use of resources to 
continue operation of HALE. EPA is working with Hawaii DOH to move the 
Federal funding currently used to support HALE to instead support the 
operation of a new PM2.5 monitor to be sited in a populated 
area of the isthmus near sugar cane fields.
    EPA is not selectively using data to justify a particular policy 
outcome. Data from both HALE and HACR were considered when determining 
if there was any evidence that smoke from agricultural operations was 
impacting visibility at Haleakala NP. This is explained in more detail 
in our discussion on agricultural burning in Section II.A.11 of this 
notice.
    The tables in the proposal and the TSD referenced by the commenters 
indicate possible smoke impacts at the HALE monitor. As we discussed 
previously, there is no evidence that this smoke is from agricultural 
burning. Nor is there any evidence that the smoke measured at HALE 
(which is outside the park and at a significantly lower elevation) is 
impacting the park itself,
    EPA believes the current filter-based monitoring instrumentation, 
based on the IMPROVE Program, is the appropriate approach to determine 
the visibility levels at Hawaii's National Parks. The IMPROVE Program 
is discussed in greater detail in the response to Comment 3: 
Chemtrails, above. Visibility levels can be estimated from aerosol 
monitoring filters. Understanding the characteristics of the aerosols 
in a haze can also help identify the type of sources that contributed 
to the haze. It is possible to statistically estimate what portion of 
haze is caused by each aerosol type. This approach, known as an 
extinction budget analysis, can narrow the list of possible sources 
responsible for visibility impacts.\67\ Therefore, in addition to 
establishing visibility levels, the filter-based monitoring approach, 
which measures the characteristics of the aerosols in haze, can help 
identify the type of sources that contributed to the haze.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \67\ See Section 2-15 of ``Visibility Monitoring Guidance'', 
June 1999 Document No. EPA-R09-OAR-2012-0345-0003-B5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The commenter recommends that EPA set up two nephelometers in 
Kihei,

[[Page 61501]]

and such a monitoring program would show that on cane burning days one 
cannot see Kihei from Haleakala or Haleakala from Kihei. However, the 
regional haze plan is designed to improve visibility within the park 
itself. Smoke outside of the park could certainly impact the views from 
the park, but such views are not specifically protected under the 
regional haze program.
    Regarding the concerns that a 24-hour average does not adequately 
capture the impacts from one to three-hour agricultural burns, the 
length of the burn is just one factor determining the percentage 
contribution to visibility impairment. A shorter burn, if it were 
impacting the monitor, could show up as a high percentage of visibility 
impairment if the source was heavily impacting the monitor for the 
duration of the burn.
    Comment 8: Emissions from sugar mill.
    Three commenters are concerned about the combustion of coal on 
Maui. One of the commenters asked EPA to consider that current permits 
allow over 100,000 tons of coal to be fired at the Puunene Mill each 
year. Another of the commenters submitted a photograph purportedly 
showing dark smoke being emitted from the mill's smokestacks. One 
commenter simply commented on the dense black smoke that comes from the 
mill's smokestack.
    One commenter stated that the Puunene Mill's most recent permit 
application proposed increasing the amount of used motor oil combusted 
from 1.5 to 2 million gallons. The commenter asked that EPA consider 
the impacts that combustion of an additional 0.5 million gallons of 
used motor oil might have on haze-causing pollutant.
    Four commenters objected to EPA's analysis discussed in the section 
titled ``Point Source SO2 Emissions on Maui'' in the TSD for 
the proposal. These commenters asserted that the four-factor analysis 
must be applied to all point sources on Maui, especially the Puunene 
Mill.
    Response 8: Section II.A.5 of this document includes a discussion 
of why the Puunene Mill is not subject to BART. This section also 
includes a discussion of the impacts of various fuels being burned at 
the Mill in that determination. The additional motor oil would not 
change the results of our analysis.
    EPA selected sources for a full reasonable progress review based on 
their total emissions of visibility-impairing pollutants and computer 
modeling of the impact of the sources' emissions on visibility at the 
Class I areas. The Puunene Mill is a much smaller source of visibility 
impairing pollutants than the Kahului Power Plant (See TSD Table VII-
2.1). And, the BART modeling for the mill showed an impact that was 
much lower than the 0.5 dv threshold. While we understand and share the 
commenters' concerns about visible emissions from the plant, there is 
no evidence that these emissions are contributing significantly to 
visibility impairment in the park, therefore it was reasonable to omit 
it from the reasonable progress analysis.
    Comment 9: ``Reasonable to assume''.
    Seven commenters disagreed with EPA statements in the TSD for the 
proposal that it is reasonable to assume that visibility at Haleakala 
on the best days is not getting worse and it is reasonable to assume 
that the visibility on the worst days will improve. Two of the 
commenters stated that in their experience in guiding tour groups 
through the Haleakala NP, visibility is not improving but is getting 
worse. Another commenter (Pearson) also asserted that the haze is not 
getting better on Maui.
    Response 9: EPA acknowledges the imprecise language in our TSD 
cited by the commenters. The proposal should have said that with 
emissions of visibility impairing pollutants being significantly 
reduced during the first planning period, it is reasonable to assume 
that anthropogenic visibility impairment will be reduced during the 
first planning period.
    Comment 10: Fugitive dust.
    One commenter stated that fugitive dust contributes significantly 
to the haze and poor air quality on Maui, yet large agricultural 
operations are exempted from best management practices. The commenter 
recommended that EPA consider this in the FIP. Another commenter also 
stated that fugitive dust from agriculture contributes to poor 
visibility in the park, and to health concerns.
    Four other commenters requested that EPA review the possible 
impacts of fugitive dust from agricultural operations, especially from 
equipment operating on unpaved roads, on visibility in Haleakala NP. 
The commenters noted that agricultural operations are not required to 
mitigate dust emissions as is required of similar construction 
operations.
    Another commenter also expressed concern about how HC&S clears and 
plows its fields. The commenter stated that this commonly creates huge 
clouds of dust hundreds of feet in the air going across the Mokelele 
Highway and past the harbor. The commenter asserted that the reefs are 
devoid of fish and the coral is dying. The commenter questioned why 
HC&S does not use water trucks to mitigate dust emissions and asked who 
establishes rules for the amount of pollution that HC&S can emit.
    Response 10: EPA shares the commenters concerns about impacts of 
fugitive dust on Maui. As explained earlier in Section II.A.4 of this 
document, coarse mass and soil do appear to be a relatively significant 
contributor to visibility impairment at Haleakala NP (and Hawaii 
Volcanoes NP to a lesser extent). However, the source of this pollutant 
is not clear.
    Comment 11: Modeling.
    One commenter stated that EPA's model is inadequate because it does 
not agree with his observation. The commenter noted that he has 
observed that the visibility between Kihei and the park is diminished 
when cane is being burned and concluded that if the model does not 
match that observation, the model is wrong and should be discarded. 
Another commenter indicated that she would challenge the models and 
assumptions being used for the analysis.
    One commenter representing the HC&S and its parent company, 
Alexander & Baldwin, concurred that it is reasonable for EPA to use the 
highest emitting day between 2003 and 2007 for BART modeling of 
emissions from the Puunene Mill. However, the commenter pointed out 
that the typical visibility impacts from the facility are lower, no 
more than 20 percent of the selected threshold for BART review and 
reasonable progress prioritization. On this basis, the commenter 
supported the proposed determination that additional controls on the 
mill are not warranted.
    Response 11: The model is not intended to measure visibility 
impairment at points outside the park; it is intended to estimate 
visibility impairment as measured inside the park. As explained above, 
the regional haze program does not specifically protect views outside 
of the park.
    EPA understands that typical emissions can be lower than the 
maximum emissions used in the BART modeling. We affirm the 
determination that the mill should not be subject to BART.
    Comment 12: Federally enforceable measures.
    One commenter stated that the Hawaii Clean Energy Initiative \68\ 
and

[[Page 61502]]

assumptions about reductions in emissions from automobiles are not 
federally enforceable for purposes of the proposed FIP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \68\ The Hawaii Clean Energy Initiative is a broad strategy by 
the State of Hawaii and the U.S. Department of Energy to reduce 
Hawaii's dependence on fossil fuels. The Hawaii Clean Energy Bill, 
referenced elsewhere is a Hawaii statute that puts many of the goals 
of the Initiative into law.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Response 12: We agree that the Hawaii Clean Energy Initiative is 
not federally enforceable. Therefore, we did not rely upon emissions 
reduction expected to result from the Initiative for purposes of 
demonstrating reasonable progress.
    With respect to reductions in emissions from automobiles, we note 
that the RHR provides that states ``may not adopt a reasonable progress 
goal that represents less visibility improvement than is expected to 
result from implementation of other requirements of the CAA during the 
applicable planning period.'' \69\ Therefore, in setting RPGs for 
Hawaii, we took into consideration the anticipated net effect on 
visibility due to projected changes in point, area, and mobile source 
and shipping emissions expected to result from other CAA requirements, 
including Federal mobile source regulations, over the period addressed 
by the long-term strategy. Finally, we note that mobile source 
regulations are federally enforceable against vehicle and engine 
manufacturers, automobile dealers, fuel importers, and refineries.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \69\ 40 CFR 51.308(d)(1)(vi); see also, 40 CFR 
51.308(d)(3)(v)(g).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comment 13: NOX emissions.
    Two commenters objected to EPA's conclusion that it is unreasonable 
to require additional controls on NOX emissions. The 
commenters indicated that the monitor data show that NOX is 
a substantial contributing factor toward visibility impairment, and one 
(Andrews) added that NOX is contributing 9 percent.
    Response 13: EPA addressed this issue in some detail in Section 
II.A.7 above.
    Comment 14: SO2 controls.
    One commenter objected to the proposal to determine that it is not 
reasonable to require additional SO2 controls on Maui. The 
commenter asserted that such controls on point sources are necessary on 
Maui.
    Response 14: EPA addressed this issue in some detail in Section 
II.A.10 above.
    Comment 15: Integral vista.
    One commenter objected to the finding of no integral vista at 
Haleakala NP. The commenter asserted that the panoramic view from 
within the park to areas outside the park, including Volcanoes NP on 
the Big Island and the view of central Maui and the surrounding oceans, 
is an integral vista within the meaning of the Federal regulations. The 
commenter added that his experience with guiding visitors at the 
Haleakala NP illustrates the importance of the panoramic view from 
within the park to areas outside to the overall visitors' experience at 
the park.
    Response 15: The question of the designation of Integral Vistas was 
addressed in Section II.A.12, above.
    Comment 16: HC&S generally concurs.
    One commenter representing the HC&S and its parent company, 
Alexander & Baldwin, stated that the company generally concurs with the 
conclusions and recommendations of the proposal. The commenter 
commended EPA and the Hawaii DOH for the thorough review and analysis 
of available data.
    Response 16: EPA appreciates the support.
    Comment 17: Kanaka Maoli.
    One commenter, stating that she represented the Kanaka Maoli 
people, objected to the FIP based on the supposition of jurisdiction. 
The commenter believes that it is unreasonable because it will afford a 
great opportunity to increase the reach into sacred burial sites and 
the sacred places of the Kanaka Maoli people. The commenter indicated 
that the plan does not address this issue and does not give any respect 
to the Kanaka Maoli people.
    Response 17: As explained in our proposal, because we found in 2009 
that Hawaii had failed to submit a Regional Haze SIP, as required under 
the CAA, we are required to promulgate a FIP to fill this gap. This FIP 
does not impose any new regulations directly on the Kanaka Maoli 
people. As to any ``supposition of jurisdiction'', we note that there 
is a ``presumption that Congress intends a general statute applying to 
all persons to include Indians and their property interests.'' \70\ The 
CAA is a general statute applying to all persons and the commenter has 
not pointed to any specific right under a treaty or statute that is in 
conflict with the CAA. Finally, we note that this is not the first FIP 
to be promulgated for Hawaii.\71\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \70\ Phillips Petroleum Co. v. U.S. E.P.A. 803 F.2d 545, 556 
(10th Cir. 1986) (citing Federal Power Commission v. Tuscarora 
Indian Nation, 362 U.S. 99, 116-18 (1960).
    \71\ See 40 CFR 52.632-633.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comment 18: Aerial applications of fertilizer and pesticide.
    One commenter indicated that, in addition to air contaminants from 
cane burning, coal combustion and geoengineering, aerial applications 
of fertilizer and pesticides contribute to the air quality problem. The 
commenter noted that he has seen white deposits from this practice many 
times and, within the last 8 months, aerial spraying by HC&S in Paia 
drifted over a public beach with children. The commenter believes that 
such things should be controlled and penalties should be imposed. The 
commenter noted that tourism suffers over these issues.
    Response 18: EPA shares the commenter's concerns about the possible 
health impacts of agricultural operations. However, these issues are 
not within the scope of this rulemaking.
    Comment 19: Emission sources.
    One commenter suggested that EPA evaluate four emissions sources 
more fully: military actions, ship emissions, biofuel plants and 
geothermal plants. The commenter provided a written copy of her 
comments, which includes documentation for many of her points about 
military actions and ship emissions from sources such as environmental 
impact statements (EIS) and news reports.
    The commenter stated that increased military actions are underway, 
and more are planned for Pohakuloa as the United States shifts forces 
to the Pacific. The commenter asserted that these activities will 
generate dust from construction, vehicles and troop movements, erosion, 
and possible fires that consume vegetation. The commenter believes that 
air quality problems may not be detected because Pohakuloa has no air-
monitoring stations in the south and southwest, which is the most 
likely place to detect any problems since the prevailing winds come 
from the northeast. The commenter stated that when training was done at 
Makua, fires consumed thousands of acres, and inadequate fire 
prevention has been an ongoing problem with that training.
    The commenter indicated that a second major action is the Stryker 
armored vehicle training, which is already taking place. According to 
the commenter, the EIS for this program indicates that there will be 
significant disturbance to soils and vegetation due to intensified on- 
and off-road maneuver training, leading to increased soil erosion that 
cannot be mitigated to less than significant, and PM10 dust 
emissions generated from wind erosion at the 23,000-acre Keamuku Parcel 
were expected to be a significant impact. The commenter added that the 
Strykers may cause fire risk.
    Regarding ship emissions, the commenter is concerned that the 
shipping industry is trying to delay the August 1 implementation date 
of the North American Emission Control Area

[[Page 61503]]

(ECA) regulations, which would reduce emissions by requiring fuel of 
less than 1 percent sulfur content when ships are 200 miles offshore. 
The commenter also is concerned about ships running their engines while 
in port instead of plugging into shore power, which is a less polluting 
source. While the commenter does not know of any port in Hawaii that 
offers such plug-in power, called Alternative Maritime Power, she 
indicated that naval vessels and Baltic ferries have used it for years, 
several North American ports are planning or already have it and some 
cruise ships can plug in. The commenter added that another alternative 
is an e-power barge that uses liquefied natural gas.
    The commenter stated that some of the claims made by biofuels 
plants regarding their air and water emissions seem unfounded. The 
commenter added that emissions from all actions related to a biofuels 
plant need to be evaluated, not just emissions generated by burning 
biofuel: clearing land; transporting seed and fertilizer; planting, 
cultivating and harvesting trees or whatever is to be burned; 
transporting the biofuel to the plant; and preparing the fuel for 
burning. The commenter further noted that after burning the fuel, there 
is waste that must be disposed. The commenter stated that the Aina Koa 
Pono plant may get revived, so there may be more impacts than just from 
the Ho Honua plant.
    The commenter indicated that geothermal technology is being pushed 
heavily, but there is extensive documentation of possible leaks that 
are not being detected. The commenter stated that nearby residents have 
reported unusual odors; corrosion of roofs, gutters and catchment tanks 
that has caused high levels of lead in drinking water; and health 
problems. The commenter contended that there have been unplanned 
releases, information pertaining to several of which are listed in her 
written comments.
    The commenter requested that EPA look into the emissions from the 
Puna Geothermal Venture (PGV) plant. She noted that although the 
facility claims there are no leaks, the facility must replace the 
pentane used in the heat exchanger, and the commenter questioned why 
that is necessary if there are no leaks. The commenter also stated that 
PGV operates hydrogen sulfide monitors at the plant, but they are at a 
height of 6 feet while hydrogen sulfide is heavier than air and travels 
at ground level.
    Response 19: EPA appreciates the comment about military activities. 
We commented on the recent EIS for Pohakuloa and expressed concerns 
about the need to mitigate the generation of fugitive dust. We will 
continue to work with the Army to mitigate pollution from their 
activities.
    Regarding emissions reductions from the ECA, since these 
requirements are part of an international treaty, neither the State of 
Hawaii nor the EPA has the authority to delay implementation or grant 
waivers from the requirements. In the unlikely event that the treaty 
could be changed in the future to allow for higher emissions, the State 
of Hawaii would have to indentify equivalent emissions reductions from 
other sources in order to meet the requirements of this FIP.
    EPA supports the implementation of shore power to reduce emissions 
from vessels while in port. However, EPA does not believe that it is 
necessary to require the use of shore power in order to show reasonable 
progress for the regional haze program.
    EPA understands the commenter's concern about emissions from 
geothermal plants, but there is no evidence that these emissions are 
contributing to visibility impairment. As a result, we affirm that 
there will be no pollution control requirements on geothermal plants as 
part of this action.
    Regarding biomass plants, this issue was addressed in Section 
II.A.5 regarding the Hu Honua and Tradewinds facilities. This 
discussion included a description of how future facilities will be 
addressed as part of the Regional Haze planning process. The concerns 
about land clearing operations are noted and EPA recommends that they 
be considered in the next plan as part of the analysis of the sources 
of coarse mass and soil impacting Volcanoes NP.
    Comment 20: Night emissions from Hilo power plants.
    One commenter who lives in Wainaku stated that early nearly every 
morning he has witnessed a blanket covering Hilo that dissipates when 
the sun rises and warms the mountain. The commenter believes that this 
blanket is composed of night emissions from the Hilo area power plants 
or other industrial activities. The commenter has documented on film 
these three power plants emitting black soot and smoke into the air. 
The commenter wonders whether these emissions are the cause of the 
morning blanket that he has witnessed, and whether these stack 
emissions are being registered by the State or EPA.
    The commenter suggested that these three power plants should be 
retrofitted with monitors to track whether they are in compliance with 
their permits. The commenter noted that the plants only have to perform 
an emissions stack test once in a while. The commenter noted that most 
of the pollution that is visible is happening at night when it does not 
affect visibility in the parks. The commenter pointed out that the 
three power plants are within 5 miles of a population of 40,000 which 
is growing rapidly. The commenter indicated that for health-related 
concerns, it would be helpful to know the 24-hour cycle of emissions 
from the plants.
    The commenter noted that the Ho Honua plant was excluded from EPA's 
review because of its conversion to biofuels, but indicated that there 
is a legal issue surrounding the claims made by the plant regarding its 
emissions and how they are dispersed by the wind. The commenter stated 
that the biofuel to be combusted at the Ho Honua plant is not 
necessarily a clean biofuel. The commenter recommended that EPA monitor 
emissions from the facility.
    The commenter also noted that Wheelabrator has proposed a waste-to-
energy plant in Hilo. The commenter asked whether that would be a 
factor in air quality in the park. Finally, the commenter suggested an 
anti-idling rule such as the commenter believes has been passed in 
California for county vehicles. The commenter noted that he frequently 
sees trucks, bulldozers and pickup trucks idling by the side of the 
road. The commenter believes that such a program would be easy to 
implement, would save the taxpayers' money and would reduce emissions.
    Response 20: The emission rate used in the analyses of the larger 
power plants on the Big Island was calculated from fuel usage records 
and chemical analyses of the fuels burned. This is a very reliable way 
to calculate the emissions and does not require the use of smokestack 
monitors. So, the lack of monitoring does not put the validity of the 
analysis in question. The annual emissions cap set in this FIP will 
similarly be demonstrated through fuel usage and chemical analysis 
records. Addressing compliance with the limits of the permits for the 
power plants on Hilo is not within the scope of this rulemaking. In 
addition, the IMPROVE monitor in the park measures pollutants 24 hours 
per day. So, any nighttime emissions would be captured and were 
included in our analysis of the causes of haze at Hawaii's National 
Parks. There is an air quality monitor in Hilo which operates on a 
continuous basis and is intended to characterize air quality in Hilo.
    EPA appreciates the comment regarding the biofuel and waste-to-

[[Page 61504]]

energy plants. The questions raised here were addressed in Section 
II.A.5. above.
    EPA is very supportive of strategies to reduce idling vehicles. 
However, given the significant reductions from mobile sources in the 
first planning period due to existing regulations, EPA affirms that we 
are not requiring additional emissions reductions from this source 
category as part of this rulemaking.
    Comment 21: Lack of concern for public.
    One commenter stated that he has experienced worsening pollution on 
the Big Island over his lifetime, and no Federal, state or county 
government agency has done anything to prevent it. The commenter 
expressed concern that pollution is only an issue at this time as it 
relates to visibility in the Hawaii Volcanoes NP, and asked whether EPA 
is aware that people live on the island.
    The commenter stated that EPA has indicated the HELCO would not 
have problems complying with EPA requirements and questioned whether 
this meeting is a show for the public. The commenter asked how the 
emissions from HELCO facilities are calculated, whether on a yearly 
basis without considering how many days or hours the plants were in 
operation, or how much pollution enters the atmosphere in 1 hour of 
operation.
    The commenter stated that the electricity rate charged to consumers 
by HELCO is based on the cost of foreign import oil, but any oil price 
reductions are not passed on to consumers. The commenter asserted that 
all HELCO costs are passed on to the consumers with the approval of the 
Hawaii PUC with no input from the public. The commenter contended that 
one primary objective of the PUC is to ensure that HELCO gains a 
profit, and characterized this situation as a dictatorial condition 
approved by the state legislature and PUC, and now endorsed by EPA. The 
commenter does not support what he alleged are dictatorial procedures 
presented by the state--Federal, state, PUC and HELCO.
    The commenter added that the smoke that an earlier commenter has 
seen at night is the result of a blow-back cleaning system that is used 
to clean the filters for the turbine engines at the HELCO plant on 
Railroad Avenue.
    Response 21: EPA is very concerned about public health. EPA and the 
State of Hawaii protect public health through implementation of the 
NAAQS. In fact, EPA recently revised the NAAQS for SO2 to be 
more stringent and more protective of public health. We are currently 
evaluating whether Hawaii and other areas of the country are in 
compliance with this new standard. In addition, EPA has been working 
with Hawaii DOH on using real-time data from the extensive 
SO2 monitoring network on the Big Island to monitor the 
impacts of the volcano and to protect public health.
    The methodology for calculating emissions was addressed in the 
previous comment.
    Comment 22: Xtreme Fuel Treatment.
    One commenter representing Xtreme Fuel Treatment manufacturer, 
Syntek Global, stated that the company's product reduces the burn rate 
of fuel, so that fuel burns more efficiently and less fuel is burned. 
The commenter contended that while the analysis looked just at power 
plants, a lot of the problems come from emissions from cars. The 
commenter suggested that EPA and the State of Hawaii conduct a test of 
the company's product with a generator or state or county transport 
system to see how emissions could be reduced.
    Response 22: Given the extensive reductions in emissions from 
mobile sources due to existing regulations, EPA affirms that we are not 
requiring additional emissions reductions from this source category as 
part of this rulemaking.

III. Summary of EPA Actions

    EPA is finalizing a Regional Haze FIP for the State of Hawaii. The 
FIP establishes an emissions cap of 3,550 tons of SO2 per 
year from the fuel oil-fired boilers at the Hill, Shipman and Puna 
power plants, beginning in 2018 (with a demonstration of compliance 
required by the end of 2018). If HELCO chooses to meet the cap by 
switching to cleaner fuel, then the EPA estimates that the costs will 
be no more than approximately $7.9 million/year. This cap represents a 
reduction of 1,400 tons per year of SO2 from the total 
projected 2018 annual emissions from these facilities. We find that 
this control measure, in conjunction with SO2 and 
NOX emissions control requirements that are already in 
place, will ensure that reasonable progress is made during this first 
planning period toward the national goal of no anthropogenic visibility 
impairment by 2064 at Hawaii's two Class I areas. We will work with the 
Hawaii DOH in developing future regional haze plans to ensure continued 
progress toward this goal.

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and Executive 
Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review 13563

    This action finalizes a FIP that will limit emissions of 
SO2 from specific units at three sources in Hawaii. Since 
this action only applies to three named sources, it is not a rule of 
general applicability. This type of action is exempt from review under 
Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 
3821, January 21, 2011).

B. Paperwork Reduction Act

    This 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 FIP applies to just three facilities, 
the Paperwork Reduction Act does not apply. See 5 CFR 1320(c).
    Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources 
expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or 
provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time 
needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize 
technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and 
verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and 
disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to 
comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements; 
train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information; 
search data sources; complete and review the collection of information; 
and transmit or otherwise disclose the information.
    An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required 
to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a 
currently valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number. 
The OMB control numbers for our regulations in 40 CFR are listed in 40 
CFR Part 9.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) generally requires an agency 
to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to 
notice and comment rulemaking requirements under the Administrative 
Procedure Act or any other statute unless the agency certifies

[[Page 61505]]

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 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 action on small 
entities, I certify that this action will not have a significant 
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The three 
sources in question are electric generating plants that are owned by 
the Hawaii Electric Light Company, Inc. (HELCO), which is an electric 
utility subsidiary of HECO. Pursuant to 13 CFR 121.201, footnote 1, an 
electric utility firm is small if, including its affiliates, it is 
primarily engaged in the generation, transmission, and/or distribution 
of electric energy for sale and its total electric output for the 
preceding fiscal year did not exceed 4 million megawatt hours (MWH). In 
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2011, HELCO generated or purchased a 
total of 1,186.6 MWH.\72\ Therefore, it is not a small business.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \72\ Hawaiian Electric Industries, Inc. and Hawaiian Electric 
Company, Inc., Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2011 
``Generation Statistics'' available in the docket for this 
rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)

    The Hawaii Regional Haze FIP will limit emissions of SO2 
from specific units at three sources in Hawaii. 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 Hawaii Regional Haze FIP does not have federalism implications. 
This action will not have substantial direct effects on the States, on 
the relationship between the national government and the States, or on 
the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels 
of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132. In this action, 
EPA is fulfilling its statutory duty under CAA Section 110(c) to 
promulgate a Regional Haze FIP following its finding that Hawaii had 
failed to submit a regional haze SIP. Thus, Executive Order 13132 does 
not apply to this action.

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

    The Hawaii Regional Haze FIP will limit emissions of SO2 
from specific units at three sources in Hawaii. This 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 rule will limit emissions of 
SO2, the rule will have a beneficial effect on children's 
health by reducing air pollution.

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

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

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

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

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

    Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994), establishes 
federal executive policy on environmental justice. Its main provision 
directs federal agencies, to the greatest extent practicable and 
permitted by law, to make environmental justice part of their mission 
by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high 
and adverse human health or environmental effects of their programs, 
policies, and activities on minority populations and low-income 
populations in the United States.
    We have determined that this rule will not have disproportionately 
high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority or 
low-income populations because it increases the level of environmental 
protection for all affected populations without having any 
disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental 
effects on any population, including any minority or low-income 
population. The Hawaii Regional Haze FIP will limit emissions of 
SO2 from specific units at three sources in Hawaii.

K. Congressional Review Act

    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the 
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally 
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating 
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, 
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the 
United States. Section 804 exempts from section 801 the following types 
of rules (1) rules of particular applicability; (2) rules relating to 
agency management or personnel; and (3) rules of agency organization, 
procedure, or practice that do not substantially affect the rights or 
obligations of non-agency parties. 5 U.S.C. 804(3). EPA is not required 
to submit a rule report regarding today's action under section 801 
because this action is a rule of particular applicability. This rule 
finalizes a FIP that applies to three specific sources.

[[Page 61506]]

L. Petitions for Judicial Review

    Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for 
judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court 
of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by December 10, 2012. Filing a 
petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule 
does not affect the finality of this rule for the purposes of judicial 
review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial 
review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such 
rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings 
to enforce its requirements. (See CAA section 307(b)(2).)

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

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by 
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Particulate matter, Reporting 
and record keeping requirements, Sulfur oxides.

    Dated: September 14, 2012.
Lisa P. Jackson,
Administrator.
    40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:

PART 52--[AMENDED]

0
1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:

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

0
2. Amend Sec.  52.633 by adding paragraph (d) to read as follows:

Sec.  52.633  Visibility protection.

* * * * *
    (d) Regional Haze Plan Provisions--(1) Applicability-- This 
paragraph (d) applies to following electric generating units (EGUs) and 
boilers: Kanoelehua Hill Generating Station, Hill 5 and Hill 6; Puna 
Power Plant, Boiler 1; Shipman Power Plant, Boiler S-3 and Boiler S-4.
    (2) Definitions. Terms not defined below shall have the meaning 
given to them in the Clean Air Act or EPA's regulations implementing 
the Clean Air Act. For purposes of this paragraph (d):

Owner/operator means any person who owns, leases, operates, controls, 
or supervises an EGU or boiler identified in paragraph (d)(1) of this 
section.
SO2 means sulfur dioxide.
Unit means any of the EGUs or boilers identified in paragraph (d)(1) of 
this section.

    (3) Emissions cap. The EGUs identified in paragraph (d)(1) of this 
section shall not emit or cause to be emitted SO2 in excess 
of a total of 3,550 tons per year, calculated as the sum of total 
SO2 emissions for all five units over a rolling 12-month 
period.
    (4) Compliance date. Compliance with the emissions cap and other 
requirements of this section is required at all times on and after 
December 31, 2018.
    (5) Monitoring, recordkeeping and reporting requirements.
    (i) All records, including support information, required by 
paragraph (d)(5) of this section shall be maintained for at least five 
(5) years from the date of the measurement, test or report. These 
records shall be in a permanent form suitable for inspection and made 
available to EPA, the Hawaii Department of Health or their 
representatives upon request.
    (ii) The owners and operators of the EGUs identified in paragraph 
(d)(1) of this section shall maintain records of fuel deliveries 
identifying the delivery dates and the type and amount of fuel 
received. The fuel to be fired in the boilers shall be sampled and 
tested in accordance with the most current American Society for Testing 
and Materials (ASTM) methods.
    (iii) The owners and operators of the EGUs identified in paragraph 
(d)(1) of this section shall analyze a representative sample of each 
batch of fuel received for its sulfur content and heat value following 
ASTM D4057. The samples shall be analyzed for the total sulfur content 
of the fuel using ASTM D129, or alternatively D1266, D1552, D2622, 
D4294, or D5453.
    (iv) The owners and operators of the EGUs identified in paragraph 
(d)(1) of this section shall calculate on a monthly basis the 
SO2 emissions for each unit for the preceding month based on 
the sulfur content, heat value and total gallons of fuel burned.
    (v) The owners and operators of the EGUs identified in paragraph 
(d)(1) of this section shall calculate on a monthly basis the total 
emissions for all units for the preceding twelve (12) months.
    (vi) The owners and operators of the EGUs identified in paragraph 
(d)(1) of this section shall notify the Hawaii Department of Health and 
EPA Region 9 of any exceedance of the emission cap in paragraph (d)(3) 
of this section within thirty (30) days of such exceedance.
    (vii) By March 1, 2019 and within sixty (60) days following the end 
of each calendar year thereafter, the owners and operators of the EGUs 
identified in paragraph (d)(1) of this section shall report to the 
Hawaii Department of Health and EPA Region 9 the total tons of 
SO2 emitted from all units for the preceding calendar year 
by month and the corresponding rolling 12-month total emissions for all 
units.
    (viii) Any document (including reports) required to be submitted by 
this rule shall be certified as being true, accurate, and complete by a 
responsible official and shall be mailed to the following addresses: 
Clean Air Branch, Environmental Management Division, State of Hawaii 
Department of Health, P.O. Box 3378, Honolulu, HI 96801-3378 and 
Director of Enforcement Division, U.S. EPA Region IX, 75 Hawthorne 
Street, San Francisco, CA 94105.

[FR Doc. 2012-23238 Filed 10-5-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
```