[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 155 (Monday, August 12, 2019)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 39754-39756]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2019-17124]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA-R09-OAR-2018-0744; FRL-9998-01-Region 9]
Air Plan Approval; Hawaii; Regional Haze Progress Report
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is approving
Hawaii's Regional Haze 5-Year Progress Report (``Progress Report'' or
``Report''), submitted on October 20, 2017, as a revision to its state
implementation plan (SIP). This SIP revision addresses requirements of
the Clean Air Act (CAA or ``Act'') and the EPA's rules that require
states to submit periodic reports describing the progress toward
reasonable progress goals (RPGs) established for regional haze and a
determination of adequacy of the state's existing regional haze plan.
The EPA is approving the Report on the basis that it addresses the
progress report and adequacy determination requirements for the first
implementation period for regional haze.
DATES: This rule is effective on September 11, 2019.
ADDRESSES: The EPA has established a docket for this action under
Docket ID No. EPA-R09-OAR-2018-0744. All documents in the docket are
listed on the https://www.regulations.gov website. Although listed in
the index, some information is not publicly available, i.e.,
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as
copyrighted material, is not placed on the internet and will be
publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket
materials are available at https://www.regulations.gov, or please
contact the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section for additional availability information.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Wienke Tax, Air Planning Office (AIR-
2), EPA Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA, 94105; (415)
947-4192; [email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document whenever ``we,''
``us,'' or ``our'' is used, we mean the EPA.
Table of Contents
I. Background Information
II. Public Comment
III. Final Action
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. Background and Purpose
On April 11, 2019, the EPA published a notice of proposed
rulemaking (NPRM) proposing to approve the Progress Report, submitted
by the Hawaii Department of Health (DOH) on October 20, 2017.\1\ A
detailed discussion of the Report and the EPA's rationale for approving
the SIP revision is provided in the NPRM and will not be restated here.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ 84 FR 14634.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
II. Public Comment
The EPA's proposed action provided a 30-day public comment period
that ended on May 13, 2019. During this period, we received five
anonymous comments, two of which were identical. The two identical
comments and one additional comment expressed general support for our
proposed approval of the Report but did not address the specifics of
our proposal and are therefore not addressed below. All five comments
are included in the docket for this rulemaking. We summarize the two
more detailed comments below and provide our responses.
Comment 1: The commenter states that Hawaii's Progress Report
provides overwhelming evidence that Hawaii has successfully decreased
human-generated emissions that contribute to the regional haze problem.
The commenter points out that the Progress Report also states that
point source emissions have increased 27 percent and that there have
been significant increases in emissions from the ``Other Fire/
Prescribed Burning'' category. The commenter believes that the EPA
should compare these statistics to existing economic data to examine
whether these pollution increases are due to higher production rates or
increased carelessness of businesses. The commenter goes on to say that
if ``economic data claims that there has been a proportional increase,
then Hawaii should implement incentives for companies that reduce
emissions in future production.'' The commenter then asserts that ``if
economic data states otherwise, Hawaii should adopt new business
regulations that force companies to reduce emissions.'' The commenter
believes these ``changes would further improve the results of the
Hawaiian report--despite the already outstanding results.'' The
commenter concludes that after this research has been conducted, the
EPA should approve the Report due to many of the outlined benefits, but
that the EPA should also help Hawaii adopt policies that reduce burning
and point source pollution. Finally, the commenter asserts that global
warming is a large issue in 2019 and taking small steps to correct the
effects of this international issue would not be harmful.
Response 1: We agree that Table 6.0-2, entitled ``Differences in
Statewide Anthropogenic Nitrogen Oxide Emissions'' in the Hawaii
Progress Report, which we reproduced in our proposed rulemaking as
Table 5,\2\ indicates that there was a 27 percent increase in nitrogen
oxide (NOX) emissions from point sources between 2005 and
2011. However, we note that the same table indicates that total
NOX emissions from all anthropogenic sources combined
decreased by four percent over that time period. Similarly, while there
were increases in emissions of NOX, sulfur dioxide
(SO2) and volatile organic compounds (VOC) from the ``Other
Fire/Prescribed Burning'' category between 2005 and 2011, there were
overall decreases in anthropogenic NOX and SO2
during the same period, and only a small (four percent) increase in
anthropogenic VOC emissions.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ 84 FR 14634, 14638.
\3\ Id. at 14638, Tables 4-6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition, as both the Progress Report and our proposed
rulemaking noted, the dominant visibility-impairing pollutant in
Hawaii's Class I areas during the first planning period was
SO2. Therefore, the EPA's reasonable progress analysis for
Hawaii for the first planning period focused primarily on significant
sources of SO2 and concluded that NOX emissions
were a ``secondary concern'' during that period.\4\ Thus, even if
NOX emissions were not declining in the first planning
period, their effect on visibility was secondary compared to
SO2 emissions during that period.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ 77 FR 31692, 31707.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Finally, the portion of the comment about global warming is not
germane to the EPA's proposed action on Hawaii's Progress Report.
Comment 2: The commenter asserts that the EPA should not approve
[[Page 39755]]
Hawaii's Progress Report and the negative declaration stating that
further revision of the existing regional haze plan is not needed at
this time. The commenter states that the dominant cause of visibility
impairment in Hawaii's Class I areas is sulfate compounds, and that
over 96 percent of the sulfate emissions are from Hawaii's volcano. The
commenter asserts that the eruption of an active volcano is
unpredictable, so the sulfate compounds in the air also vary year to
year. The commenter states that the current plan may improve visibility
in Class I this year, but it does not represent it will account for the
following years. The commenter further states that the current method
and control procedures are effective and reliable, but because the
commenter considers Hawaii to be a ``high-risk'' area given the number
of visitors, the commenter asserts that the EPA needs to be extremely
careful with people's safety.
Response 2: The commenter makes several distinct points. We agree
with the commenter that volcanic eruptions are unpredictable and have
year-to-year variability, resulting in variability in SO2
emissions and sulfate-related visibility effects. However, Hawaii DOH
does not have the ability to control or influence these emissions, and
the goal of the regional haze program is to remedy visibility
impairment resulting from man-made air pollution and does not require
control of natural sources such as volcanoes. Therefore, we agree with
Hawaii DOH's conclusion that ``the existing implementation plan
requires no further substantive revision at this time in order to
achieve established goals for visibility improvement and emissions
reductions,'' and we find that Hawaii's conclusion is consistent with
the Regional Haze Rule at 51.308(h)(1).
Additionally, the commenter states that the current plan may
improve visibility in Class I areas this year, but that the plan does
not account for subsequent years. The Progress Report only addresses
the first regional haze planning period which extends to 2018; a SIP
revision covering the second regional haze implementation period ending
in 2028 is due to the EPA by July 31, 2021.
Finally, while we agree with the commenter regarding the importance
of safety, it is important to note that the purpose of the regional
haze program is to protect visibility. The CAA provides separate
processes for addressing the health impacts of SO2,
including the establishment of health-based national ambient air
quality standards for SO2, the designation of areas as
attainment or nonattainment based on ambient air quality data, and the
development of SIPs to ensure attainment and maintenance of the
SO2 standard.
III. Final Action
For the reasons described in our responses to comments, the
comments received do not alter our proposed determination that the
Hawaii Progress Report addresses the progress report and adequacy
determination requirements for the first implementation period for
regional haze Therefore, the EPA is approving Hawaii's Regional Haze
Progress Report, submitted by Hawaii DOH on October 20, 2017, as
meeting the applicable requirements of the CAA and the federal Regional
Haze Rule, as set forth in 40 CFR 51.308(g), as a revision to the
Hawaii SIP. The EPA is approving Hawaii's determination that the
existing regional haze plan is adequate to meet the existing RPGs and
requires no substantive revision as this time, as set forth in 40 CFR
51.308(h).
We have also determined that Hawaii fulfilled the requirements in
40 CFR 51.308(i) regarding state coordination with federal land
managers.
IV. 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, the EPA's role
is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of
the CAA. Accordingly, this action merely approves state law as meeting
federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond
those imposed by state law. For that reason, this action:
Is not a significant regulatory action subject to review
by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58
FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);
is not an Executive Order 13771 regulatory action because
this action is not significant under Executive Order 12866;
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 the 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, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian
reservation land or in any other area where the EPA or an Indian tribe
has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of
Indian country, the rule does not have tribal implications and will not
impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal
law as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9,
2000).
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. The EPA will submit a report containing this action and
other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register.
A major rule cannot take effect until 60 days after it is published
in the Federal Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined
by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). 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 October
11, 2019. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of
this final rule does not affect the finality of this action for the
purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a
petition for judicial review may be filed,
[[Page 39756]]
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 section 307(b)(2).)
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Particulate
matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides,
Visibility, Volatile organic compounds.
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Dated: July 30, 2019.
Deborah Jordan,
Acting Regional Administrator, EPA Region IX.
Part 52, chapter I, title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations is
amended as follows:
PART 52--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS
0
1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Subpart M--Hawaii
0
2. Section 52.620, the table in paragraph (e) is amended by adding an
entry for ``State of Hawaii Air Pollution Control Implementation Plans
for Regional Haze,'' after the entry for ``Section XIV--Resources'' to
read as follows:
Sec. 52.620 Identification of plan.
* * * * *
(e) * * *
EPA-Approved Non-Regulatory and Quasi-Regulatory Measures
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Applicable
geographic or State
Name of SIP provision nonattainment area submittal EPA approval date Explanation
or title/subject date
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
State of Hawaii Air Pollution Control Implementation Plans for Regional Haze
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hawaii State Department of Health State-wide.......... 10/20/2017 8/12/2019 [Insert
5-Year Regional Haze Progress Federal Register
Report for Federal Citation].
Implementation Plan, excluding
Appendix H, I and J.
* * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * *
0
3. Section 52.633 is amended by adding paragraph (e) to read as
follows:
Sec. 52.633 Visibility protection.
* * * * *
(e) Approval. On October 20, 2017, the Hawaii Department of Health
submitted the ``Hawaii State Department of Health 5-Year Regional Haze
Progress Report for Federal Implementation Plan'' (``Progress
Report''). The Progress Report meets the requirements of the Regional
Haze Rule in 40 CFR 51.308.
[FR Doc. 2019-17124 Filed 8-9-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P