[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 96 (Monday, May 19, 2014)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 28659-28663]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-11432]
[[Page 28659]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA-R09-OAR-2014-0317; FRL-9911-02-Region-9]
Approval and Promulgation of State Implementation Plans; Hawaii;
Infrastructure Requirements for the 2008 8-Hour Ozone and the 2010
Nitrogen Dioxide National Ambient Air Quality Standards
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to
approve elements of a State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision
submitted by the State of Hawaii on April 04, 2014, pursuant to the
requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA or the Act) for the 2008 8-Hour
Ozone and the 2010 Nitrogen Dioxide national ambient air quality
standards (NAAQS). The CAA requires that each state adopt and submit a
SIP for the implementation, maintenance, and enforcement of each NAAQS
promulgated by EPA. We are taking comments on this proposal and plan to
follow with a final action.
DATES: Written comments must be received on or before June 18, 2014.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID Number EPA-
R09-OAR-2014-0317, by one of the following methods:
1. http://www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for
submitting comments.
2. Email: [email protected].
3. Fax: 415-947-3579.
4. Mail or deliver: Dawn Richmond, Air Planning Office (AIR-2),
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street,
San Francisco, CA 94105-3901. Deliveries are only accepted during the
Regional Office's normal hours of operation.
Instructions: All comments will be included in the public docket
without change and may be made available online at http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided,
unless the comment includes Confidential Business Information (CBI) or
other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Information that you consider CBI or otherwise protected should be
clearly identified as such and should not be submitted through http://www.regulations.gov or email. http://www.regulations.gov is an
anonymous access system, and EPA will not know your identity or contact
information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you
send email directly to EPA, your email address will be automatically
captured and included as part of the public comment. If EPA cannot read
your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for
clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment.
Docket: The index to the docket for this action is available
electronically at http://www.regulations.gov and in hard copy at EPA
Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, California. While all
documents in the docket are listed in the index, some information may
be publicly available only at the hard copy location (e.g., copyrighted
material), and some may not be publicly available in either location
(e.g., CBI). To inspect the hard copy materials, please schedule an
appointment during normal business hours with the contact listed
directly below.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dawn Richmond, Air Planning Office
(AIR-2), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region IX, (415) 972-
3207, [email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, the terms ``we,''
``us,'' and ``our'' refer to EPA.
Table of Contents
I. Background
A. Statutory Framework
B. Regulatory History
II. EPA's Approach to the Review of Infrastructure SIP Submissions
III. State Submittal and EPA Action
IV. EPA's Evaluation and Proposed Action
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. Background
A. Statutory Framework
Section 110(a)(1) of the CAA requires states to make a SIP
submission within 3 years after the promulgation of a new or revised
primary NAAQS. Section 110(a)(2) includes a list of specific elements
that ``[e]ach such plan'' submission must include. Many of the section
110(a)(2) SIP elements relate to the general information and
authorities that constitute the ``infrastructure'' of a state's air
quality management program and SIP submittals that address these
requirements are referred to as ``infrastructure SIPs.'' These
infrastructure SIP elements are as follows:
Section 110(a)(2)(A): Emission limits and other control
measures.
Section 110(a)(2)(B): Ambient air quality monitoring/data
system.
Section 110(a)(2)(C): Program for enforcement of control
measures and regulation of new stationary sources.
Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i): Interstate pollution transport.
Section 110(a)(2)(D)(ii): Interstate and international
pollution abatement.
Section 110(a)(2)(E): Adequate resources and authority,
conflict of interest, and oversight of local governments and regional
agencies.
Section 110(a)(2)(F): Stationary source monitoring and
reporting.
Section 110(a)(2)(G): Emergency episodes.
Section 110(a)(2)(H): SIP revisions.
Section 110(a)(2)(J): Consultation with government
officials, public notification, and prevention of significant
deterioration (PSD) and visibility protection.
Section 110(a)(2)(K): Air quality modeling and submission
of modeling data.
Section 110(a)(2)(L): Permitting fees.
Section 110(a)(2)(M): Consultation/participation by
affected local entities.
Two elements identified in section 110(a)(2) are not governed by
the three-year submission deadline of section 110(a)(1) and are
therefore not addressed in this action. These elements relate to part D
of title I of the CAA, and submissions to satisfy them are not due
within three years after promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS, but
rather are due at the same time nonattainment area plan requirements
are due under section 172. The two elements are: (1) Section
110(a)(2)(C) to the extent it refers to permit programs required under
part D (nonattainment New Source Review (NSR)), and (2) section
110(a)(2)(I), pertaining to the nonattainment planning requirements of
part D. As a result, this action does not address infrastructure
elements related to the nonattainment NSR portion of section
110(a)(2)(C) or related to section 110(a)(2)(I).
B. Regulatory Background
On March 12, 2008, EPA issued a revised NAAQS for ozone.\1\ On
January 22, 2010, EPA issued a revised NAAQS for nitrogen dioxide.\2\
These revisions to
[[Page 28660]]
the ozone and nitrogen dioxide NAAQS, triggered requirements for states
to submit infrastructure SIPs to address the applicable requirements of
section 110(a)(2) within three years of issuance of each of these
revised NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ 73 FR 16436 (March 27, 2008). EPA revised the previous 8-
hour primary ozone standard of 0.08 parts per million (ppm) to 0.075
ppm. EPA also revised the secondary 8-hour standard to the level of
0.075 ppm making it identical to the revised primary standard. In
September 2009, EPA announced it would reconsider the 2008 8-hour
ozone NAAQS. However, in September 2011, EPA announced its decision
to merge the reconsideration of the 2008 NAAQS with the next
scheduled 5-year review of the ozone NAAQS, and advised the states
that the 2008 NAAQS would be implemented.
\2\ 75 FR 6474 (February 9, 2010). EPA established a 1-hour
standard of 100 parts per billion (ppb), based on the 3-year average
of the 98th percentile of the yearly distribution of 1-hour daily
maximum concentrations, to supplement the existing annual standard.
EPA set the annual NO2 standard to 0.053 ppm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On January 15, 2013, EPA found that Hawaii had failed to make a
submittal for the 2008 ozone NAAQS to satisfy the requirements of
section 110(a)(2)(A), (B), (C) to the extent it refers to enforcement,
to permitting programs for minor sources and to PSD permitting programs
required by part C of title I of the CAA, 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II),
110(a)(2)(D)(ii), 110(a)(2)(E) through (H) and 110(a)(2)(J) through
(M).\3\ We explained that ``sections 110(a)(2)(C), (D)(i)(II), (D)(ii)
and (J) (in all four subsections for the PSD-related and notification-
related requirements only) are already addressed for Hawaii through an
existing PSD FIP that remains in place. Therefore, this action will not
trigger any additional FIP obligations with respect to the PSD-related
and notification-related requirements in these four subsections.'' \4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ 78 FR 2882.
\4\ Id. at 2889.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We also explained that we were not issuing findings of failure to
submit a SIP addressing section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) of the CAA, due to
the D.C. Circuit's recent opinion in EME Homer City Generation v. EPA,
696 F.3d 7, 31 (D.C. Cir. 2012).
II. EPA's Approach to the Review of Infrastructure SIP Submissions
EPA is acting upon the SIP submission from Hawaii that addresses
the infrastructure requirements of CAA sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2)
for the 2008 8-Hour Ozone and the 2010 Nitrogen Dioxide NAAQS. The
requirement for states to make a SIP submission of this type arises out
of CAA section 110(a)(1). Pursuant to section 110(a)(1), states must
make SIP submissions ``within 3 years (or such shorter period as the
Administrator may prescribe) after the promulgation of a national
primary ambient air quality standard (or any revision thereof),'' and
these SIP submissions are to provide for the ``implementation,
maintenance, and enforcement'' of such NAAQS. The statute directly
imposes on states the duty to make these SIP submissions, and the
requirement to make the submissions is not conditioned upon EPA's
taking any action other than promulgating a new or revised NAAQS.
Section 110(a)(2) includes a list of specific elements that ``[e]ach
such plan'' submission must address.
EPA has historically referred to these SIP submissions made for the
purpose of satisfying the requirements of CAA sections 110(a)(1) and
110(a)(2) as ``infrastructure SIP'' submissions. Although the term
``infrastructure SIP'' does not appear in the CAA, EPA uses the term to
distinguish this particular type of SIP submission from submissions
that are intended to satisfy other SIP requirements under the CAA, such
as ``nonattainment SIP'' or ``attainment plan SIP'' submissions to
address the nonattainment planning requirements of part D of title I of
the CAA, ``regional haze SIP'' submissions required by EPA rule to
address the visibility protection requirements of CAA section 169A, and
nonattainment new source review permit program submissions to address
the permit requirements of CAA, title I, part D.
Section 110(a)(1) addresses the timing and general requirements for
infrastructure SIP submissions, and section 110(a)(2) provides more
details concerning the required contents of these submissions. The list
of required elements provided in section 110(a)(2) contains a wide
variety of disparate provisions, some of which pertain to required
legal authority, some of which pertain to required substantive program
provisions, and some of which pertain to requirements for both
authority and substantive program provisions.\5\ EPA therefore believes
that while the timing requirement in section 110(a)(1) is unambiguous,
some of the other statutory provisions are ambiguous. In particular,
EPA believes that the list of required elements for infrastructure SIP
submissions provided in section 110(a)(2) contains ambiguities
concerning what is required for inclusion in an infrastructure SIP
submission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ For example: Section 110(a)(2)(E)(i) provides that states
must provide assurances that they have adequate legal authority
under state and local law to carry out the SIP; section 110(a)(2)(C)
provides that states must have a SIP-approved program to address
certain sources as required by part C of title I of the CAA; and
section 110(a)(2)(G) provides that states must have legal authority
to address emergencies as well as contingency plans that are
triggered in the event of such emergencies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The following examples of ambiguities illustrate the need for EPA
to interpret some section 110(a)(1) and section 110(a)(2) requirements
with respect to infrastructure SIP submissions for a given new or
revised NAAQS. One example of ambiguity is that section 110(a)(2)
requires that ``each'' SIP submission must meet the list of
requirements therein, while EPA has long noted that this literal
reading of the statute is internally inconsistent and would create a
conflict with the nonattainment provisions in part D of title I of the
Act, which specifically address nonattainment SIP requirements.\6\
Section 110(a)(2)(I) pertains to nonattainment SIP requirements and
part D addresses when attainment plan SIP submissions to address
nonattainment area requirements are due. For example, section 172(b)
requires EPA to establish a schedule for submission of such plans for
certain pollutants when the Administrator promulgates the designation
of an area as nonattainment, and section 107(d)(1)(B) allows up to two
years, or in some cases three years, for such designations to be
promulgated.\7\ This ambiguity illustrates that rather than apply all
the stated requirements of section 110(a)(2) in a strict literal sense,
EPA must determine which provisions of section 110(a)(2) are applicable
for a particular infrastructure SIP submission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ See, e.g., ``Rule To Reduce Interstate Transport of Fine
Particulate Matter and Ozone (Clean Air Interstate Rule); Revisions
to Acid Rain Program; Revisions to the NOX SIP Call;
Final Rule,'' 70 FR 25162, at 25163-65 (May 12, 2005) (explaining
relationship between timing requirement of section 110(a)(2)(D)
versus section 110(a)(2)(I)).
\7\ EPA notes that this ambiguity within section 110(a)(2) is
heightened by the fact that various subparts of part D set specific
dates for submission of certain types of SIP submissions in
designated nonattainment areas for various pollutants. Note, e.g.,
that section 182(a)(1) provides specific dates for submission of
emissions inventories for the ozone NAAQS. Some of these specific
dates are necessarily later than three years after promulgation of
the new or revised NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Another example of ambiguity within sections 110(a)(1) and
110(a)(2) with respect to infrastructure SIPs pertains to whether
states must meet all of the infrastructure SIP requirements in a single
SIP submission, and whether EPA must act upon such SIP submission in a
single action. Although section 110(a)(1) directs states to submit ``a
plan'' to meet these requirements, EPA interprets the CAA to allow
states to make multiple SIP submissions separately addressing
infrastructure SIP elements for the same NAAQS. If states elect to make
such multiple SIP submissions to meet the infrastructure SIP
requirements, EPA can elect to act on such submissions either
individually or in a larger combined action.\8\
[[Page 28661]]
Similarly, EPA interprets the CAA to allow EPA to take action on the
individual parts of one larger, comprehensive infrastructure SIP
submission for a given NAAQS without concurrent action on the entire
submission. For example, EPA has sometimes elected to act at different
times on various elements and sub-elements of the same infrastructure
SIP submission.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ See, e.g., ``Approval and Promulgation of Implementation
Plans; New Mexico; Revisions to the New Source Review (NSR) State
Implementation Plan (SIP); Prevention of Significant Deterioration
(PSD) and Nonattainment New Source Review (NNSR) Permitting,'' 78 FR
4339 (January 22, 2013) (EPA's final action approving the structural
PSD elements of the New Mexico SIP submitted by the State separately
to meet the requirements of EPA's 2008 PM2.5 NSR rule),
and ``Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
New Mexico; Infrastructure and Interstate Transport Requirements for
the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS,'' (78 FR 4337, January 22, 2013)
(EPA's final action on the infrastructure SIP for the 2006
PM2.5 NAAQS).
\9\ On December 14, 2007, the State of Tennessee, through the
Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation, made a SIP
revision to EPA demonstrating that the State meets the requirements
of sections 110(a)(1) and (2). EPA proposed action for
infrastructure SIP elements (C) and (J) on January 23, 2012 (77 FR
3213) and took final action on March 14, 2012 (77 FR 14976). On
April 16, 2012 (77 FR 22533) and July 23, 2012 (77 FR 42997), EPA
took separate proposed and final actions on all other section
110(a)(2) infrastructure SIP elements of Tennessee's December 14,
2007 submittal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ambiguities within sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2) may also arise
with respect to infrastructure SIP submission requirements for
different NAAQS. Thus, EPA notes that not every element of section
110(a)(2) would be relevant, or as relevant, or relevant in the same
way, for each new or revised NAAQS. The states' attendant
infrastructure SIP submissions for each NAAQS therefore could be
different. For example, the monitoring requirements that a state might
need to meet in its infrastructure SIP submission for purposes of
section 110(a)(2)(B) could be very different for different pollutants,
for example because the content and scope of a state's infrastructure
SIP submission to meet this element might be very different for an
entirely new NAAQS than for a minor revision to an existing NAAQS.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ For example, implementation of the 1997 PM2.5
NAAQS required the deployment of a system of new monitors to measure
ambient levels of that new indicator species for the new NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA notes that interpretation of section 110(a)(2) is also
necessary when EPA reviews other types of SIP submissions required
under the CAA. Therefore, as with infrastructure SIP submissions, EPA
also has to identify and interpret the relevant elements of section
110(a)(2) that logically apply to these other types of SIP submissions.
For example, section 172(c)(7) requires that attainment plan SIP
submissions required by part D have to meet the ``applicable
requirements'' of section 110(a)(2). Thus, for example, attainment plan
SIP submissions must meet the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(A)
regarding enforceable emission limits and control measures and section
110(a)(2)(E)(i) regarding air agency resources and authority. By
contrast, it is clear that attainment plan SIP submissions required by
part D would not need to meet the portion of section 110(a)(2)(C) that
pertains to the PSD program required in part C of title I of the CAA,
because PSD does not apply to a pollutant for which an area is
designated nonattainment and thus subject to part D planning
requirements. As this example illustrates, each type of SIP submission
may implicate some elements of section 110(a)(2) but not others.
Given the potential for ambiguity in some of the statutory language
of sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2), EPA believes that it is
appropriate to interpret the ambiguous portions of sections 110(a)(1)
and 110(a)(2) in the context of acting on a particular SIP submission.
In other words, EPA assumes that Congress could not have intended that
each and every SIP submission, regardless of the NAAQS in question or
the history of SIP development for the relevant pollutant, would meet
each of the requirements, or meet each of them in the same way.
Therefore, EPA has adopted an approach under which it reviews
infrastructure SIP submissions against the list of elements in section
110(a)(2), but only to the extent each element applies for that
particular NAAQS.
Historically, EPA has elected to use guidance documents to make
recommendations to states for infrastructure SIPs, in some cases
conveying needed interpretations on newly arising issues and in some
cases conveying interpretations that have already been developed and
applied to individual SIP submissions for particular elements.\11\ EPA
most recently issued guidance for infrastructure SIPs on September 13,
2013 (2013 Guidance).\12\ EPA developed this document to provide states
with up-to-date guidance for infrastructure SIPs for any new or revised
NAAQS. Within this guidance, EPA describes the duty of states to make
infrastructure SIP submissions to meet basic structural SIP
requirements within three years of promulgation of a new or revised
NAAQS. EPA also made recommendations about many specific subsections of
section 110(a)(2) that are relevant in the context of infrastructure
SIP submissions.\13\ The guidance also discusses the substantively
important issues that are germane to certain subsections of section
110(a)(2). Significantly, EPA interprets sections 110(a)(1) and
110(a)(2) such that infrastructure SIP submissions need to address
certain issues and need not address others. Accordingly, EPA reviews
each infrastructure SIP submission for compliance with the applicable
statutory provisions of section 110(a)(2), as appropriate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ EPA notes, however, that nothing in the CAA requires EPA to
provide guidance or to promulgate regulations for infrastructure SIP
submissions. The CAA directly applies to states and requires the
submission of infrastructure SIP submissions, regardless of whether
or not EPA provides guidance or regulations pertaining to such
submissions. EPA elects to issue such guidance in order to assist
states, as appropriate.
\12\ ``Guidance on Infrastructure State Implementation Plan
(SIP) Elements under Clean Air Act Sections 110(a)(1) and
110(a)(2),'' Memorandum from Stephen D. Page, September 13, 2013.
\13\ EPA's September 13, 2013, guidance did not make
recommendations with respect to infrastructure SIP submissions to
address section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). EPA issued the guidance shortly
after the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to review the D.C. Circuit
decision in EME Homer City, 696 F.3d7 (D.C. Cir. 2012) which had
interpreted the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). In light
of the uncertainty created by ongoing litigation, EPA elected not to
provide additional guidance on the requirements of section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) at that time. As the guidance is neither binding
nor required by statute, whether EPA elects to provide guidance on a
particular section has no impact on a state's CAA obligations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As an example, section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) is a required element of
section 110(a)(2) for infrastructure SIP submissions. Under this
element, a state must meet the substantive requirements of section 128,
which pertain to state boards that approve permits or enforcement
orders and heads of executive agencies with similar powers. Thus, EPA
reviews infrastructure SIP submissions to ensure that the state's SIP
appropriately addresses the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii)
and section 128. The 2013 Guidance explains EPA's interpretation that
there may be a variety of ways by which states can appropriately
address these substantive statutory requirements, depending on the
structure of an individual state's permitting or enforcement program
(e.g., whether permits and enforcement orders are approved by a multi-
member board or by a head of an executive agency). However they are
addressed by the state, the substantive requirements of section 128 are
necessarily included in EPA's evaluation of infrastructure SIP
submissions because section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) explicitly requires that
the state satisfy the provisions of section 128.
As another example, EPA's review of infrastructure SIP submissions
with respect to the PSD program requirements in sections 110(a)(2)(C),
[[Page 28662]]
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II), and 110(a)(2)(J) focuses upon the structural PSD
program requirements contained in part C and EPA's PSD regulations.
Structural PSD program requirements include provisions necessary for
the PSD program to address all regulated sources and NSR pollutants,
including GHGs. By contrast, structural PSD program requirements do not
include provisions that are not required under EPA's regulations at 40
CFR 51.166 but are merely available as an option for the state, such as
the option to provide grandfathering of complete permit applications
with respect to the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS. Accordingly, the
latter optional provisions are types of provisions EPA considers
irrelevant in the context of an infrastructure SIP action.
For other section 110(a)(2) elements, however, EPA's review of a
state's infrastructure SIP submission focuses on assuring that the
state's SIP meets basic structural requirements. For example, section
110(a)(2)(C) includes, inter alia, the requirement that states have a
program to regulate minor new sources. Thus, EPA evaluates whether the
state has an EPA-approved minor new source review program and whether
the program addresses the pollutants relevant to that NAAQS. In the
context of acting on an infrastructure SIP submission, however, EPA
does not think it is necessary to conduct a review of each and every
provision of a state's existing minor source program (i.e., already in
the existing SIP) for compliance with the requirements of the CAA and
EPA's regulations that pertain to such programs.
With respect to certain other issues, EPA does not believe that an
action on a state's infrastructure SIP submission is necessarily the
appropriate type of action in which to address possible deficiencies in
a state's existing SIP. These issues include: (1) Existing provisions
related to excess emissions from sources during periods of startup,
shutdown, or malfunction that may be contrary to the CAA and EPA's
policies addressing such excess emissions (``SSM''); (2) existing
provisions related to ``director's variance'' or ``director's
discretion'' that may be contrary to the CAA because they purport to
allow revisions to SIP-approved emissions limits while limiting public
process or not requiring further approval by EPA; and (3) existing
provisions for PSD programs that may be inconsistent with current
requirements of EPA's ``Final NSR Improvement Rule,'' 67 FR 80186
(December 31, 2002), as amended by 72 FR 32526 (June 13, 2007) (``NSR
Reform''). Thus, EPA believes it may approve an infrastructure SIP
submission without scrutinizing the totality of the existing SIP for
such potentially deficient provisions and may approve the submission
even if it is aware of such existing provisions.\14\ It is important to
note that EPA's approval of a state's infrastructure SIP submission
should not be construed as explicit or implicit re-approval of any
existing potentially deficient provisions that relate to the three
specific issues just described.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ By contrast, EPA notes that if a state were to include a
new provision in an infrastructure SIP submission that contained a
legal deficiency, such as a new exemption for excess emissions
during SSM events, then EPA would need to evaluate that provision
for compliance against the rubric of applicable CAA requirements in
the context of the action on the infrastructure SIP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA's approach to review of infrastructure SIP submissions is to
identify the CAA requirements that are logically applicable to that
submission. EPA believes that this approach to the review of a
particular infrastructure SIP submission is appropriate, because it
would not be reasonable to read the general requirements of section
110(a)(1) and the list of elements in 110(a)(2) as requiring review of
each and every provision of a state's existing SIP against all
requirements in the CAA and EPA regulations merely for purposes of
assuring that the state in question has the basic structural elements
for a functioning SIP for a new or revised NAAQS. Because SIPs have
grown by accretion over the decades as statutory and regulatory
requirements under the CAA have evolved, they may include some outmoded
provisions and historical artifacts. These provisions, while not fully
up to date, nevertheless may not pose a significant problem for the
purposes of ``implementation, maintenance, and enforcement'' of a new
or revised NAAQS when EPA evaluates adequacy of the infrastructure SIP
submission. EPA believes that a better approach is for states and EPA
to focus attention on those elements of section 110(a)(2) of the CAA
most likely to warrant a specific SIP revision due to the promulgation
of a new or revised NAAQS or other factors.
For example, EPA's 2013 Guidance gives simpler recommendations with
respect to carbon monoxide than other NAAQS pollutants to meet the
visibility requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II), because carbon
monoxide does not affect visibility. As a result, an infrastructure SIP
submission for any future new or revised NAAQS for carbon monoxide need
only state this fact in order to address the visibility prong of
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II).
Finally, EPA believes that its approach with respect to
infrastructure SIP requirements is based on a reasonable reading of
sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2) because the CAA provides other avenues
and mechanisms to address specific substantive deficiencies in existing
SIPs. These other statutory tools allow EPA to take appropriately
tailored action, depending upon the nature and severity of the alleged
SIP deficiency. Section 110(k)(5) authorizes EPA to issue a ``SIP
call'' whenever the Agency determines that a state's SIP is
substantially inadequate to attain or maintain the NAAQS, to mitigate
interstate transport, or to otherwise comply with the CAA.\15\ Section
110(k)(6) authorizes EPA to correct errors in past actions, such as
past approvals of SIP submissions.\16\ Significantly, EPA's
determination that an action on a state's infrastructure SIP submission
is not the appropriate time and place to address all potential existing
SIP deficiencies does not preclude EPA's subsequent reliance on
provisions in section 110(a)(2) as part of the basis for action to
correct those deficiencies at a later time. For example, although it
may not be appropriate to require a state to eliminate all existing
inappropriate director's discretion provisions in the course of acting
on an infrastructure SIP submission, EPA believes that section
110(a)(2)(A) may be among the statutory bases that EPA relies upon in
the course of addressing such deficiency in a subsequent action.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ For example, EPA issued a SIP call to Utah to address
specific existing SIP deficiencies related to the treatment of
excess emissions during SSM events. See ``Finding of Substantial
Inadequacy of Implementation Plan; Call for Utah State
Implementation Plan Revisions,'' 76 FR 21639 (April 18, 2011).
\16\ EPA has used this authority to correct errors in past
actions on SIP submissions related to PSD programs. See ``Limitation
of Approval of Prevention of Significant Deterioration Provisions
Concerning Greenhouse Gas Emitting-Sources in State Implementation
Plans; Final Rule,'' 75 FR 82536 (December 30, 2010). EPA has
previously used its authority under CAA section 110(k)(6) to remove
numerous other SIP provisions that the Agency determined it had
approved in error. See, e.g., 61 FR 38664 (July 25, 1996) and 62 FR
34641 (June 27, 1997) (corrections to American Samoa, Arizona,
California, Hawaii, and Nevada SIPs); 69 FR 67062 (November 16,
2004) (corrections to California SIP); and 74 FR 57051 (November 3,
2009) (corrections to Arizona and Nevada SIPs).
\17\ See, e.g., EPA's disapproval of a SIP submission from
Colorado on the grounds that it would have included a director's
discretion provision inconsistent with CAA requirements, including
section 110(a)(2)(A). See, e.g., 75 FR 42342 at 42344 (July 21,
2010) (proposed disapproval of director's discretion provisions); 76
FR 4540 (Jan. 26, 2011) (final disapproval of such provisions).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 28663]]
III. State Submittal and EPA Action
On April 4, 2014, the Hawaii Department of Health (HDOH) submitted
the ``Hawaii State Implementation Plan Revision for 2008 Ozone and 2010
Nitrogen Dioxide National Ambient Air Quality Standard Clean Air Act
section 110(a)(1) & (2)'' (Hawaii Ozone and Nitrogen Dioxide
Infrastructure SIP), which includes (1) a ``Proposed Certification of
Adequacy Table'' (Attachment 1), (2) a ``Proposed List of Revisions to
Regulatory and Statutory Provisions in the Hawaii State Implementation
Plan'' (Attachment 2); (3) Summary of Public Participation Proceedings
(Attachment 3); (4) Hawaii Revised Statutes Title 19, Health Chapter
342B, Air Pollution Control Sections 4 and 5 (Appendix A); (5) Hawaii
Administrative Rules, Chapter 11-60.1, Section 31(Appendix B); and (6)
other supporting materials.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ A copy of the complete Hawaii ozone and nitrogen dioxide
Infrastructure SIP submittal has been placed in the docket for this
action and is available online at http://www.regulations.gov, docket
number EPA-R09-OAR-2014-0317.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On April 21, 2014, EPA determined that the SIP revision was
complete, except for the following sub-elements: 110(a)(2)(C) sub-
element 3 (preconstruction PSD permitting of major sources);
110(a)(2)(D); and 110(a)(2)(J) sub-elements 1 (consultation with
identified officials on certain air agency actions) and 3 (PSD).
IV. EPA's Evaluation and Proposed Action
EPA has evaluated the Hawaii Ozone and Nitrogen Dioxide
Infrastructure SIP in relation to the infrastructure SIP requirements
of CAA section 110(a)(2) and the applicable implementing regulations in
40 CFR part 51. The Technical Support Document (TSD) for this action,
which is available in the docket to this action, includes our
evaluation for each element, as well as our evaluation of various
statutory and regulatory provisions. In particular, we evaluated Hawaii
Administrative Rules (HAR) section 11-60.1-31 Hawaii Revised Statutes
(HRS) sections 342B-4 342B-5 for approval into the Hawaii SIP and HRS
sections 342-14, 342-18 and 342-19 for removal from the SIP.
Based upon this analysis, EPA proposes to approve HAR section 11-
60.1-31 and HRS sections 342B-4 and 342B-5 into the Hawaii SIP and to
remove HRS sections 342-14, 342-18 and 342-19 from the SIP. We also
propose to approve the Hawaii Ozone and Nitrogen Dioxide Infrastructure
SIP with respect to the following CAA requirements:
Section 110(a)(2)(A): Emission limits and other control
measures.
Section 110(a)(2)(B): Ambient air quality monitoring/data
system.
Section 110(a)(2)(C) (in part): Program for enforcement of
control measures and regulation of new stationary sources (minor NSR
program).
Section 110(a)(2)(E): Adequate resources and authority,
conflict of interest, and oversight of local governments and regional
agencies.
Section 110(a)(2)(F): Stationary source monitoring and
reporting.
Section 110(a)(2)(G): Emergency episodes.
Section 110(a)(2)(H): SIP revisions.
Section 110(a)(2)(J) (in part): Public notification (sub-
element 2).
Section 110(a)(2)(K): Air quality modeling and submission
of modeling data.
Section 110(a)(2)(L): Permitting fees.
Section 110(a)(2)(M): Consultation/participation by
affected local entities.
As explained above, we previously found the Hawaii Ozone and
Nitrogen Dioxide Infrastructure SIP incomplete with respect to various
sub-elements. Where EPA determines that a portion of a SIP submission
is incomplete, ``the State shall be treated as not having made the
submission (or, in the Administrator's discretion, part thereof.)''\19\
Accordingly, we are not proposing to act on the Hawaii Ozone and
Nitrogen Dioxide Infrastructure SIP with respect to 110(a)(2)(C) sub-
element 3 (preconstruction PSD permitting of major sources);
110(a)(2)(D) all sub-elements; and 110(a)(2)(J) sub-elements 1
(consultation with identified officials on certain air agency actions)
and 3 (PSD).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ CAA section 110(k)(1)(C).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP
submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable
Federal regulations (42 U.S.C. 7410(k), 40 CFR 52.02(a)). Thus, in
reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this
proposed action merely approves some state law as meeting federal
requirements; this proposed action does not impose additional
requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, this
proposed action:
Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
Does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999); is not an
economically significant regulatory action based on health or safety
risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);
Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
Is not subject to requirements of section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the CAA; and,
Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
In addition, this rule does not have tribal implications as
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000),
because the SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in
the State, and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct
costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Oxides of nitrogen, Ozone,
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds.
Dated: April 25, 2014.
Jared Blumenfeld,
Regional Administrator, EPA Region 9.
[FR Doc. 2014-11432 Filed 5-16-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P