Air Plan Approval; Hawaii; Regional Haze Progress Report, 14634-14640 [2019-07212]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
14634
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 70 / Thursday, April 11, 2019 / Proposed Rules
26 CFR Part 1
of the paragraph to read: ‘‘Finally, the
proposed regulations define financial
services income by reference to section
904(d)(2)(D) and proposed § 1.904–
4(e)(1)(ii).’’
[REG–104464–18]
§ 1.250(b)–1
RIN 1545–BO55
■
DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY
Internal Revenue Service
Deduction for Foreign-Derived
Intangible Income and Global
Intangible Low-Taxed Income;
Correction
Internal Revenue Service (IRS),
Treasury.
ACTION: Correction to a notice of
proposed rulemaking.
Martin V. Franks,
Chief, Publications and Regulations Branch,
Legal Processing Division, Associate Chief
Counsel (Procedure and Administration).
AGENCY:
This document contains a
correction to a notice of proposed
rulemaking (REG–104464–18) that was
published in the Federal Register on
Wednesday, March 6, 2019. The
proposed regulations provided guidance
to determine the amount of the
deduction for foreign-derived intangible
income and global intangible low-taxed
income.
DATES: Written or electronic comments
and requests for a public hearing for the
notice of proposed rulemaking at 84 FR
8188 (March 6, 2019) are still being
accepted and must be received by May
6, 2019.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Concerning proposed §§ 1.250(a)–1
through 1.250(b)–6, 1.962–1, 1.6038–2,
1.6038–3, and 1.6038A–2, Kenneth
Jeruchim at (202) 317–6939; concerning
proposed §§ 1.1502–12, 1.1502–13 and
1.1502–50, Michelle A. Monroy at (202)
317–5363 or Austin Diamond-Jones at
(202) 317–6847; concerning submissions
of comments and requests for a public
hearing, Regina L. Johnson, (202) 317–
6901 (not toll free numbers).
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
SUMMARY:
Background
The proposed regulations that are the
subject of this correction are under
sections 250, 962, 1502, 6038, and
6038A of the Internal Revenue Code.
Need for Correction
As published, the proposed
regulations contain errors which may
prove to be misleading and need to be
clarified.
amozie on DSK9F9SC42PROD with PROPOSALS
[Corrected]
2. On page 8216, first column, the last
line of paragraph (d)(3)(ii)(B)(2)(i), the
language ‘‘distributive of PRS’s gross
FDDEI’’ is corrected to read
‘‘distributive share of PRS’s gross
FDDEI’’.
Correction of Publication
Accordingly, the notice of proposed
rulemaking published at 84 FR 8188
(March 6, 2019) is corrected as follows:
■ 1. On page 8190, in the preamble,
under the heading: ‘‘2. Determination of
DEI and FDDEI’’, in the third column, in
the 23rd line, add a sentence at the end
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:20 Apr 10, 2019
Jkt 247001
[FR Doc. 2019–07118 Filed 4–10–19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4830–01–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA–R09–OAR–2018–0744; FRL–9992–01–
Region 9]
Air Plan Approval; Hawaii; Regional
Haze Progress Report
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
AGENCY:
The Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve
Hawaii’s Regional Haze Progress Report
(‘‘Progress Report’’ or ‘‘Report’’)
submitted by the State of Hawaii on
October 20, 2017, as a revision to its
state implementation plan (SIP). Hawaii
submitted its Progress Report and a
negative declaration stating that further
revision of the existing regional haze
plan is not needed at this time. The
Progress Report addresses the federal
Regional Haze Rule (RHR) requirements
under the Clean Air Act (CAA) to
submit a report describing progress in
achieving reasonable progress goals
(RPGs) established for regional haze and
a determination of the adequacy of the
State’s existing plan addressing regional
haze. Hawaii’s Progress Report notes
that Hawaii has implemented the
measures in the regional haze plan due
to be in place by the date of the Progress
Report and that visibility in Class I areas
affected by emissions from Hawaii is
improving. The EPA is proposing to
approve Hawaii’s determination that the
State’s regional haze plan is adequate to
meet RPGs in Class I areas affected by
emissions from Hawaii for the first
implementation period, which extended
through 2018, and requires no
substantive revision at this time.
SUMMARY:
PO 00000
Frm 00009
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
Comments must be received on
or before May 13, 2019.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments,
identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R09–
OAR–2018–0744 at https://
www.regulations.gov. Follow the online
instructions for submitting comments.
Once submitted, comments cannot be
edited or removed from Regulations.gov.
The EPA may publish any comment
received to its public docket. Do not
submit electronically any information
you consider to be Confidential
Business Information (CBI) or other
information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Multimedia
submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be
accompanied by a written comment.
The written comment is considered the
official comment and should include
discussion of all points you wish to
make. The EPA will generally not
consider comments or comment
contents located outside of the primary
submission (i.e., on the web, cloud, or
other file sharing system). For
additional submission methods, the full
EPA public comment policy,
information about CBI or multimedia
submissions, and general guidance on
making effective comments, please visit
https://www2.epa.gov/dockets/
commenting-epa-dockets.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Wienke Tax, Air Planning Office, EPA
Region IX, (415) 947–4192, tax.wienke@
epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Throughout this document, whenever
‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’ or ‘‘our’’ is used, it is
intended to refer to the EPA.
DATES:
Table of Contents
I. Background
A. Description of Regional Haze
B. History of Regional Haze Rule
C. Hawaii’s Regional Haze Plan
II. Context for Understanding Hawaii’s
Progress Report
A. Framework for Measuring Progress
B. Data Sources for Hawaii’s Progress
Report
III. The EPA’s Evaluation of Hawaii’s
Progress Report
A. Status of Implementation of All
Measures Included in the Regional Haze
Implementation Plan
B. Summary of Emissions Reductions
C. Summary of Visibility Conditions
D. Determination of Adequacy
E. Consultation With FLMs
IV. The EPA’s Proposed Action
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. Background
A. Description of Regional Haze
Regional haze is visibility impairment
produced by many sources and
activities located across a broad
geographic area that emit fine particles
E:\FR\FM\11APP1.SGM
11APP1
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 70 / Thursday, April 11, 2019 / Proposed Rules
that impair visibility by scattering and
absorbing light, thereby reducing the
clarity, color, and visible distance that
one can see. These fine particles also
can cause serious health effects and
mortality in humans and contribute to
environmental impacts, such as acid
deposition and eutrophication of water
bodies.
amozie on DSK9F9SC42PROD with PROPOSALS
B. History of Regional Haze Rule
In section 169A(a)(1) of the CAA
Amendments of 1977, Congress created
a program to protect visibility in
designated national parks and
wilderness areas, establishing as a
national goal the ‘‘prevention of any
future, and the remedying of any
existing, impairment of visibility in
mandatory class I Federal areas which
impairment results from manmade air
pollution.’’ In accordance with section
169A of the CAA and after consulting
with the Department of the Interior, the
EPA promulgated a list of 156
mandatory Class I federal areas where
visibility is identified as an important
value.1 In this notice, we refer to
mandatory Class I federal areas on this
list as ‘‘Class I areas.’’
With the CAA Amendments of 1990,
Congress added section 169B to address
regional haze issues. The EPA
promulgated the RHR on July 1, 1999.2
In the RHR, the EPA revised the existing
visibility regulations to integrate
provisions addressing regional haze
impairment and to establish a
comprehensive visibility protection
program for Class I areas. As defined in
the RHR, the RPGs must provide for an
improvement in visibility for the most
impaired days (‘‘worst days’’) over the
period of the implementation plan and
ensure no degradation in visibility for
the least impaired days (‘‘best days’’)
over the same period.3 The first
implementation plan generally covers
the period from 2000–2018 (also known
as the first planning period).
Five years after submittal of the initial
regional haze plan, states were required
to submit progress reports that evaluate
progress towards the RPGs for each
Class I area within the state and in each
Class I area outside the state which may
be affected by emissions from within the
state.4 States were also required to
1 The Class I areas are listed at 40 CFR part 81,
subpart D. Areas designated as Class I areas consist
of national parks exceeding 6,000 acres, wilderness
areas and national memorial parks exceeding 5,000
acres, and all international parks that were in
existence on August 7, 1977 (42 U.S.C. 7472(a)).
2 64 FR 35714 (July 1, 1999). The rule was
subsequently revised on July 6, 2005 (70 FR 39104),
October 13, 2006 (71 FR 60612), and January 10,
2017 (82 FR 3078).
3 40 CFR 51.308(d)(1).
4 40 CFR 51.308(g).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:20 Apr 10, 2019
Jkt 247001
submit, at the same time as the progress
report, a determination of the adequacy
of the state’s existing regional haze
plan.5
C. Hawaii’s Regional Haze Plan
Hawaii did not submit an initial
regional haze SIP. Consequently, the
EPA developed a regional haze federal
implementation plan (FIP), which was
promulgated on October 9, 2012.6
On October 20, 2017, the State of
Hawaii submitted the Progress Report to
meet the requirements of 40 CFR
51.308(g) and (h). In accordance with
these requirements, the Progress Report
describes the status of the
implementation of measures included in
the regional haze implementation plan,7
emissions reductions from these
measures, and improvements in
visibility conditions at the State’s Class
I areas. The Progress Report also
includes a negative declaration stating
that further revision of the existing
implementation plan is not needed in
accordance with 40 CFR 51.308(h)(1).
The EPA is proposing to approve
Hawaii’s Progress Report.
II. Context for Understanding Hawaii’s
Progress Report
To better understand Hawaii’s
Progress Report as well as the EPA’s
evaluation of it, this section provides
background on the regional haze
program in Hawaii.
A. Framework for Measuring Progress
The EPA has established a metric for
determining visibility conditions at
Class I areas referred to as the ‘‘deciview
index,’’ which is measured in deciviews
(dv), as defined in 40 CFR 51.301. A
deciview expresses uniform changes in
haziness in terms of common
increments across the entire range of
visibility conditions, from pristine to
extremely hazy conditions. Deciviews
are determined by using air quality data
collected from the Interagency
Monitoring of Protected Visual
Environments (IMPROVE) network
monitors to estimate light extinction,
and then transforming the value of light
extinction using a logarithmic function.
Hawaii has two Class I areas within
its borders: Haleakala National Park
(NP) on Maui Island and Hawaii
Volcanoes NP on the island of Hawaii.
For this Progress Report, monitoring
data representing visibility conditions
in Hawaii’s two Class I areas were based
on the three IMPROVE monitors
5 40
CFR 51.308(h).
FR 61478.
7 ‘‘Implementation plan,’’ as defined in 40 CFR
51.301, includes FIP provisions, as well as SIPs.
6 77
PO 00000
Frm 00010
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
14635
identified in Table 1.8 As shown in the
table, the HACR1 and HALE1
monitoring sites represent Haleakala
NP, and the HAVO1 site represents
Hawaii Volcanoes NP.
TABLE 1—HAWAII IMPROVE MONITORING SITES AND REPRESENTED
CLASS I AREAS
Class I area
Haleakala NP ........................
Site code
a HACR1.
b HALE1.
Hawaii Volcanoes NP ...........
HAVO1.
a Monitoring
at the HACR1 site began in
2007.
b The HALE1 monitoring site operated from
2001 to 2011.
Under the RHR, a state’s initial
regional haze SIP must establish two
RPGs for each of its Class I areas: One
for the 20 percent least impaired days
and one for the 20 percent most
impaired days. The RPGs must provide
for an improvement in visibility on the
20 percent most impaired days and
ensure no degradation in visibility on
the 20 percent least impaired days, as
compared to visibility conditions during
the baseline period. In establishing the
RPGs, a state must consider the uniform
rate of visibility improvement from the
baseline to natural conditions in 2064
and the emission reduction measures
needed to achieve that uniform rate. The
typical method for determining RPGs is
to use meteorological and air quality
modeling to predict the visibility at
Class I areas for the end of the planning
period (2018 in this case). However, the
dominant cause of visibility impairment
in Hawaii’s Class I areas is sulfate
compounds, and over 96 percent of the
sulfate emissions are from Hawaii’s
volcano. Volcanic eruptions vary greatly
from year to year with no discernable
patterns. As a result, modeling to project
overall visibility conditions has little
value for Hawaii’s Class I areas.
Consequently, the EPA set the RPGs for
Hawaii’s two Class I areas based on
island-specific inventories for Maui and
Hawaii, the islands that contain Class I
areas.9
B. Data Sources for Hawaii’s Progress
Report
To demonstrate visibility progress,
Hawaii used data from the Western
8 The HALE1 IMPROVE monitor began operation
on Maui in 1990 at a site about 3.5 miles outside
of Haleakala NP. In 2007, a second IMPROVE
monitor (HACR1) was installed at a higher elevation
within Haleakala NP. The HACR1 site was
considered more representative of visibility
conditions within Haleakala NP and replaced the
HALE1 monitoring station in 2012. See Progress
Report, 3, and Appendix.A.
9 77 FR 31692, 31707–13 (May 29, 2012).
E:\FR\FM\11APP1.SGM
11APP1
14636
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 70 / Thursday, April 11, 2019 / Proposed Rules
Regional Air Partnership (WRAP)
Technical Support System (TSS).
Hawaii used the most recent visibility
information available from the WRAP
TSS as a technical basis for its progress
report. It also used the technical data
and analyses in a report titled ‘‘Western
Regional Air Partnership Regional Haze
Rule Reasonable Progress Summary
Report’’ (‘‘WRAP Report’’), dated June
28, 2013.10 The WRAP Report was
prepared for WRAP, ‘‘on behalf of the 15
western state members in the WRAP
region, to provide the technical basis for
use by the western states to develop the
first of RHR individual Progress
Reports.’’ 11 Hawaii’s Progress Report
presented data for both of its Class I
areas, comparing visibility conditions
for the 20 percent most impaired and 20
percent least impaired days during the
baseline period (2000–2004), the current
period for the Progress Report (2011–
2015), and years between those periods.
III. The EPA’s Evaluation of Hawaii’s
Progress Report
This section describes the contents of
Hawaii’s Progress Report and the EPA’s
review of the report, the determination
of adequacy required by 40 CFR
51.308(h), and the requirement for state
and Federal Land Manager (FLM)
coordination in 40 CFR 51.308(i).
amozie on DSK9F9SC42PROD with PROPOSALS
A. Status of Implementation of All
Measures Included in the Regional Haze
Implementation Plan
In its Progress Report, Hawaii
described the status of the control
measures that the EPA and the State
relied on to implement the regional haze
program: The sulfur dioxide (SO2)
emissions cap from the FIP; the State’s
renewable portfolio standard and energy
efficiency programs; the North
American Emissions Control Area
(ECA); federal mobile source
regulations; the State’s open burning
regulations; and facility closures.
Hawaii included a description of these
programs, which are summarized below.
Hawaii also explained that the FIP did
not include any controls to implement
best available retrofit technology
(BART).
1. SO2 Emissions Cap for Electricity
Generating Units (EGUs)
The Hawaii regional haze FIP
established an SO2 emissions cap in 40
10 See
Progress Report, 3, and Western Regional
Air Partnership Regional Haze Rule Reasonable
Progress Summary Report (June 28, 2013). https://
www.wrapair2.org/documents/Fullpercent
20Report/WRAP_RHRPR_Full_Report_without_
Appendices.PDF. (Also included as Appendix A of
the Progress Report).
11 Progress Report, Appendix A, 12.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:20 Apr 10, 2019
Jkt 247001
CFR 52.633(d). Affected EGUs shall not
emit or cause to be emitted more than
3,550 tons per year (tpy), summed over
5 units using a rolling 12-month period.
These units are Kanoelehua Hill
Generating Station, boilers Hill 5 and
Hill 6; Puna Power Plant, boiler 1; and
Shipman Power Plant, boilers S–3 and
S–4. The primary fuel for these boilers
is fuel oil number 6. The Shipman
Power Plant permanently closed on
December 31, 2015; thus, the SO2
emissions cap applies only to the
affected EGUs at Kanoelehua Hill and
Puna. The Hawaii Department of Health
(DOH) provided copies of the current air
permits for each facility to the EPA in
November 2018 to document the State’s
implementation of the FIP.12
2. Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS)
and Energy Efficiency Programs
Hawaii has state-level renewable
energy and energy efficiency programs
for greenhouse gas reduction that have
reduced electricity generation. These
programs have also resulted in
reductions in emissions of SO2 and
nitrogen oxides (NOX) due to reduced
fuel use. As part of Hawaii’s RPS,
Hawaiian Electric Light Company
(HELCO) plans to achieve 100 percent
renewable energy by 2045.13
3. Hawaii Agricultural and Open
Burning Programs
The Hawaii DOH regulates open
burning, including agricultural,
residential, and prescribed burning. For
agricultural burning, the State has
established a permit program for
burning green waste, which may be
restricted during times of drought, fire
hazard, or designated ‘‘No Burn’’
periods. Hawaii Commercial and Sugar
Company (HC&S) on Maui had
agricultural burn permits to burn cane,
but the facility closed in 2016.14
4. Facility Closures
Table. 2.2–1 in the Progress Report
lists three sources that have closed,
including HC&S Puunene Sugar Mill,
Maui Pineapple Company, and HELCO
Shipman. Although these closures were
not required under the FIP, all of these
closures have reduced emissions of
visibility-impairing pollutants.15
5. North American ECA
The North American ECA became
enforceable in August 2012 and
regulates emissions of NOX, SO2, and
fine particulate from ships. The North
American ECA includes waters adjacent
to the eight main Hawaiian Islands. The
North American ECA emissions
standards include a decreasing fuel
sulfur limit and engine NOX standards,
both of which will contribute to
reductions of visibility-impairing
pollutants near Class I areas in Hawaii.
6. Federal Mobile Source Controls
In its Progress Report, Hawaii
discussed several rules the EPA has
promulgated to reduce emissions from
mobile sources. In 2001, the EPA
promulgated a rule with an emissions
limit for NOX from heavy-duty highway
vehicles of 0.20 grams per brakehorsepower-hour, which was phased in
between 2007 and 2010.16 In 2004, the
EPA promulgated a Clean Air Nonroad
Diesel Rule to reduce emissions from
nonroad diesel engines and/or fuels,
including construction, agricultural,
industrial, airport, locomotive, and
marine vessel engines. The rule
established limits to be phased in by
2014.17 The EPA also issued new fuel
sulfur requirements for ultra-low sulfur
diesel fuel in 2006.18 Federal Tier II fuel
standards reduced the sulfur content of
gasoline by up to 90 percent.19
B. Summary of Emissions Reductions
Section 5.0 of the Hawaii Progress
Report includes a summary of the
emissions reductions achieved
throughout the State through
implementation of the control measures
relied upon to achieve reasonable
progress. In addition, the Progress
Report summarizes changes in
emissions inventories for all major
visibility-impairing pollutants from
point, area, on-road mobile, non-road
mobile, marine, and anthropogenic fire
source categories in the State. For these
summaries, emissions during the
baseline years are represented using a
2005 inventory, which was the most
complete inventory available at the time
the regional haze FIP was developed. It
was developed with support from
ENVIRON International Corporation and
some emissions estimates were refined
by Hawaii DOH. The EPA also worked
with contractors at the University of
North Carolina and ICF International on
estimating on-road emissions.20
16 66
FR 5002 (January 18, 2001).
FR 38958 (June 29, 2004).
18 65 FR 6698 (February 10, 2000).
19 See https://www.epa.gov/gasoline-standards/
gasoline-sulfur.
20 Technical Support Document for the Proposed
Action on the Federal Implementation Plan for the
Regional Haze Program in the State of Hawaii, U.S.
EPA Region 9, May 14, 2012.
17 69
12 See letter dated November 15, 2018, from Bruce
S. Anderson, Ph.D., Director of Health, Hawaii
DOH, to Mr. Michael Stoker, Regional
Administrator, U.S. EPA Region 9.
13 Progress Report, 14.
14 Id. at 16.
15 Id. at 17.
PO 00000
Frm 00011
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\11APP1.SGM
11APP1
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 70 / Thursday, April 11, 2019 / Proposed Rules
Differences between inventories are
represented as the difference between
the 2005 inventory developed for the
Hawaii regional haze FIP and a 2011
inventory based on the 2011 National
Emissions Inventory.
Hawaii’s Progress Report noted that in
the SO2 emissions inventory, volcanic
emissions dominate the inventory, far
exceeding anthropogenic sources of
SO2. Likewise, nonanthropogenic
particulate matter (PM10) emissions
from sea spray dominate the PM10
inventory. Specifically, Hawaii
identified in the Progress Report:
• SO2 emissions reductions achieved
through controls on point and area
sources with slight (less than 1 percent
of total SO2 emissions) increases
between 2005 and 2011 in other fire/
prescribed burning;
• Decreases in NOX emissions from
area sources and mobile sources, which
more than offset increases in point
source emissions and emissions from
other fire/prescribed burning; and
• A slight (4 percent) increase in
statewide volatile organic compound
(VOC) emissions due to increases from
point and area sources that was not
offset by decreases from mobile sources.
The emissions inventories were
complicated by the changes and
enhancements that have occurred
14637
between development of the baseline
and current period emissions
inventories. Hawaii stated that some of
the differences between inventories are
more reflective of changes in inventory
methodology, rather that changes in
actual emissions. For example, both
biogenic VOC emissions and volcanic
emissions were updated.21
Notwithstanding these differences
between the 2005 and 2011 emissions
inventory methodologies, estimated
emissions for SO2, NOX, VOC, PM10 and
ammonia (NH3) are summarized in
Tables 2 and 3 below.
TABLE 2—2005 STATEWIDE EMISSIONS INVENTORY
SO2
NOX
VOC
PM10
NH3
Anthropogenic Sources
Point Sources .......................................................................
Area Sources .......................................................................
Agricultural Burning ..............................................................
Other Fire .............................................................................
On-Road Mobile ...................................................................
Non-Road Mobile .................................................................
Marine ..................................................................................
27,072
3,716
178
0
321
669
3,619
22,745
1,509
406
1
20,642
6,296
5,624
2,695
16,920
535
7
12,066
6,383
209
3,536
33,408
1,567
7
638
649
398
12
11,136
60
0
1,085
0
0
Total Anthropogenic ......................................................
35,575
57,223
38,815
40,203
12,298
Natural Sources
Volcano ................................................................................
Sea Spray ............................................................................
Windblown Dust ...................................................................
Wildfire .................................................................................
Biogenic ...............................................................................
961,366
0
0
591
0
0
0
0
2,156
4,617
0
0
0
4,729
130,153
0
382,637
46,808
4,771
0
0
0
0
540
0
Total Natural .................................................................
961,957
6,773
134,882
439,216
540
63,996
173,697
479,419
12,838
All Sources
Total Emissions ....................................................................
997,531
Source: Progress Report, 42.
TABLE 3—2011 STATEWIDE EMISSIONS INVENTORY
SO2
NOX
VOC
PM10
NH3
amozie on DSK9F9SC42PROD with PROPOSALS
Anthropogenic Sources
Point Sources .......................................................................
Area Sources .......................................................................
Agricultural Burning ..............................................................
Other Fire .............................................................................
On-Road Mobile ...................................................................
Non-Road Mobile .................................................................
Marine ..................................................................................
22,047
3,331
178
36
102
7
2,037
28,982
1,176
405
389
15,503
3,842
4,895
3,059
18,425
535
1,672
11,180
5,428
154
2,813
34,803
1,567
853
305
403
338
1,031
7,547
148
59
412
6
3
Total Anthropogenic ......................................................
27,738
55,192
40,453
41,420
9,749
0
0
0
99
0
0
0
390
0
382,637
46,808
162
0
0
0
12
Natural Sources
Volcano ................................................................................
Sea Spray ............................................................................
Windblown Dust ...................................................................
Wildfire .................................................................................
406,030
0
0
9
21 See Progress Report, 42, footnotes 4 and 5 to
Table 5.0–3.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:20 Apr 10, 2019
Jkt 247001
PO 00000
Frm 00012
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\11APP1.SGM
11APP1
14638
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 70 / Thursday, April 11, 2019 / Proposed Rules
TABLE 3—2011 STATEWIDE EMISSIONS INVENTORY—Continued
SO2
NOX
VOC
PM10
NH3
Biogenic ...............................................................................
0
4,617
130,153
0
0
Total Natural .................................................................
406,039
4,716
130,543
429,607
12
59,808
170,996
471,027
9,761
All Sources
Total Emissions ....................................................................
433,768
Source: Progress Report, 42.
Changes in emissions from 2005 to
2011 for SO2, NOX, and VOC,
respectively, are noted in absolute value
and as a percentage of baseline
emissions presented in tables 4, 5, and
6.
TABLE 4—CHANGES IN ANTHROPOGENIC SO2 EMISSIONS AND PERCENT CHANGES FROM 2005–2011
Statewide SO2
(tpy)
Source category
2005
2011
Change
Percent
change
Point Sources ..................................................................................................
Area Sources ...................................................................................................
Agricultural Burning .........................................................................................
Other Fire/Prescribed Burning .........................................................................
On-Road Mobile Sources ................................................................................
Non-Road Mobile Sources ..............................................................................
Marine ..............................................................................................................
27,072
3,716
178
0
321
669
3,619
22,047
3,331
178
36
102
7
2,037
¥5,025
¥385
0
36
¥219
¥662
¥1,582
¥19
¥10
0
>100
¥68
¥99
¥44
Total Anthropogenic .................................................................................
35,575
27,738
¥7,837
¥22
Source: Progress Report, 44.
TABLE 5—CHANGES IN ANTHROPOGENIC NOX EMISSIONS AND PERCENT CHANGES FROM 2005–2011
Statewide SO2
(tpy)
Source category
2005
2011
Change
Percent
change
Point Sources ..................................................................................................
Area Sources ...................................................................................................
Agricultural Burning .........................................................................................
Other Fire/Prescribed Burning .........................................................................
On-Road Mobile Sources ................................................................................
Non-Road Mobile Sources ..............................................................................
Marine ..............................................................................................................
22,745
1,509
406
1
20,642
6,296
5,624
28,892
1,176
405
389
15,503
3,842
4,895
6,237
¥333
¥1
388
¥5,139
¥2,454
¥729
27
¥22
¥0.2
>100
¥25
¥39
¥13
Total Anthropogenic .................................................................................
57,223
55,192
¥2,031
¥4
Source: Progress Report, 45.
TABLE 6—CHANGES IN ANTHROPOGENIC VOC EMISSIONS AND PERCENT CHANGES FROM 2005–2011
Statewide SO2
(tpy)
Source category
amozie on DSK9F9SC42PROD with PROPOSALS
2005
2011
Change
Percent
change
Point Sources ..................................................................................................
Area Sources ...................................................................................................
Agricultural Burning .........................................................................................
Other Fire/Prescribed Burning .........................................................................
On-Road Mobile Sources ................................................................................
Non-Road Mobile Sources ..............................................................................
Marine ..............................................................................................................
2,695
16,920
535
7
12,066
6,383
209
3,059
18,425
535
1,672
11,180
5,428
154
364
1,505
0
166
¥886
¥955
¥55
14
9
0
>100
¥25
¥15
¥26
Total Anthropogenic .................................................................................
38,815
40,452
1,638
4
Source: Progress Report, 46.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:20 Apr 10, 2019
Jkt 247001
PO 00000
Frm 00013
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\11APP1.SGM
11APP1
14639
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 70 / Thursday, April 11, 2019 / Proposed Rules
In its Progress Report, Hawaii
concluded that the control strategies in
the existing regional haze plan are
adequate to meet the 2018 RPGs.
Progress includes significant reductions
in SO2 and NOX emissions from Maui
and Hawaii Island point sources,
including the SO2 emissions cap,
renewable energy projects, the
retirement of some units, and facility
closures.
C. Summary of Visibility Conditions
Hawaii’s Progress Report provided
visibility data during the baseline
period (2000–2004), the current period
for the Progress Report (2011–2015), and
for the rolling 5-year periods between
the baseline and current periods, based
on IMPROVE data that were available at
the time Hawaii developed the Progress
Report. These RPGs are listed in Table
7 along with the baseline and current (as
of submission of the Progress Report)
visibility conditions.
TABLE 7—HAWAII CLASS I AREA VISIBILITY CONDITIONS ON THE 20 PERCENT MOST AND LEAST IMPAIRED DAYS
20% Most impaired days
Hawaii Class I area
Haleakala NP .............
Hawaii Volcanoes NP
Monitor/region
2005–09
First
progress
period
(dv)
2000–04
Baseline
(dv)
a HACR1
....................
HALE1 .......................
HAVO1 ......................
b 9.5
b 10.8
b 13.3
b 14.8
b 18.9
h 24.9
2011–15
current
period
(dv)
c 9.7
i 18.0
20% Least impaired days
2018 RPGs
(dv)
d 13
d 18.7
2005–09
First
progress
period
(dv)
2000–04
Baseline
(dv)
e 1.0
e 0.9
e 4.5
e 4.4
j 4.1
k 3.8
2011–15
Current
period
(dv)
2018 RPGs
(dv)
f 0.6
g 4.5
l 3.4
m 4.0
a
The HACR1 IMPROVE monitor began operation in 2007, thus 2007–2009 data used for Haleakala NP for the 2005–2009 period. See Progress Report, 26–27.
Report, Appendix A, Table 6.5–4.
Table 4.1–1.
d Id., Table 6.5–5.
e 77 FR 31692, 31713 (May 29, 2012). The RPG for Haleakala was based on monitoring data from HALE1.
f Progress Report, Table 4.1–1.
g Id., Table 7.0–2 (sum of values for all species under ‘‘2018 With FIP’’).
h Id., Table 4.2–3.
i Id., Table 4.1–3.
j Id., Table 4.2–4.
k Id.
l Id., Table 4.1–4.
m Id., Table 7.0–2 (sum of values for all species under ‘‘2018 With FIP’’).
b Progress
amozie on DSK9F9SC42PROD with PROPOSALS
c Id,,
Based on the information in Chapter
4.0 of the Progress Report, Hawaii
demonstrated that both Class I areas
experienced improvements in visibility
for the 20 percent most and least
impaired days between the baseline
(2000–2004) and current (2011–2015)
visibility periods, as summarized in
table 7 above and shown in tables 4.0–
1, 4.0–2, 4.0–3, 4.1–1 and 4.1–2 of the
Progress Report. Table 7 also shows that
the five-year average worst days and
best days during the current period
(2011–2015) were below (i.e., better
than) the 2018 RPGs. Thus, both of the
State’s Class I areas are on track to meet
or surpass their 2018 RPGs.
Hawaii’s Progress Report included an
analysis of progress and impediments to
progress. Hawaii evaluated visibility
trends from 2007 to 2015 from the
HACR1 monitor and 2001 to 2015 at the
HAVO1 monitor.22 Hawaii noted that
five-year rolling averages of the haze
index show slight visibility
improvements on both the 20 percent
most-impaired days and more
significant visibility improvements for
the 20 percent least-impaired days for
both Class I areas.23 Hawaii’s Progress
Report concluded that control strategies
in the existing regional haze plan are
adequate to meet the 2018 RPGs. The
average trends for least-impaired days
Progress Report, 37.
at 31.
show improvement at both monitoring
locations. Similarly, average trends for
most-impaired days show improvement.
The Progress Report also contains a
review of Hawaii’s visibility monitoring
strategy. In the Progress Report, Hawaii
concludes that the IMPROVE network
continues to comply with the
monitoring requirements in the Regional
Haze Rule and that no modifications to
Hawaii’s visibility monitoring strategy
are necessary at this time.
The Progress Report did not expressly
address Class I areas outside the state.
As explained in our proposed regional
haze FIP:
Hawaii lies approximately 2,390 miles
southwest of the Continental United States
and has been included by EPA in the regional
haze program, ‘‘because of the potential for
emissions from sources within [its] borders to
contribute to regional haze impairment in
Class I areas also located within [Hawaii’s]
own jurisdiction.’’ 24
Therefore, we found that emissions
from Hawaii were not reasonably
anticipated to contribute to visibility
impairment in any mandatory Class I
Federal area located in another state or
states.25 For the same reasons, we now
find that it was appropriate for Hawaii
to exclude discussion of out-of-state
areas in its Progress Report.
22 See
24 77
23 Id.
25 Id.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:20 Apr 10, 2019
Jkt 247001
PO 00000
FR 31713 (quoting 64 FR 35714, 35720).
Frm 00014
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
D. Determination of Adequacy
Within the Progress Report, the State
of Hawaii provided a negative
declaration stating that further revision
of the existing implementation plan is
not needed in accordance with 40 CFR
51.308(h)(1).26 The basis for the State’s
negative declaration is the information
in the Progress Report and the
determination that Hawaii was on track
to achieve 2018 RPGs for the State’s
Class I areas. Given the reductions in
SO2 and NOX emissions and the
improvements in visibility at the State’s
Class I areas achieved during the
planning period, the EPA proposes to
approve Hawaii’s determination that the
existing Hawaii regional haze plan
requires no substantive revisions at this
time to achieve the established RPGs for
Class I areas.
E. Consultation With FLMs
The State of Hawaii invited the FLMs
to comment on its draft Progress Report
on May 12, 2017, and provided a 60-day
comment period prior to releasing the
report for public comment.27 In a letter
dated July 6, 2017, the FLMs concurred
with Hawaii’s conclusion in its draft
progress report that additional revisions
26 See
Progress Report, 81.
electronic mail dated May 12, 2017, from
Michael Madsen, Hawaii DOH, to Susan Johnson
and Patricia Brewer, National Park Service,
requesting comment on Hawaii’s Regional Haze
Progress Report, in the docket for today’s action.
27 See
E:\FR\FM\11APP1.SGM
11APP1
14640
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 70 / Thursday, April 11, 2019 / Proposed Rules
to the State’s regional haze
implementation plan were not needed at
this time.28 The EPA proposes to find
that Hawaii has addressed the
requirements in 40 CFR 51.308(i).
amozie on DSK9F9SC42PROD with PROPOSALS
IV. The EPA’s Proposed Action
The EPA is proposing to approve the
Hawaii Regional Haze Progress Report
submitted to the EPA on October 20,
2017, as meeting the applicable
requirements of the CAA and RHR, as
set forth in 40 CFR 51.308(g). The EPA
proposes to approve Hawaii’s
determination that the existing regional
haze plan is adequate to meet the
established RPGs in Class I areas
affected by emissions from Hawaii and
requires no substantive revision at this
time. We propose to find that Hawaii
fulfilled the requirements in 40 CFR
51.308(i) regarding state coordination
with FLMs.
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
CAA and applicable Federal
regulations.29 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 proposed 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 proposed 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 (82
FR 9339, February 2, 2017) regulatory
action because actions such as SIP
approvals are exempted 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);
28 See letter dated July 6, 2017, from Patricia
Brewer, National Park Service, to Michael Madsen,
Hawaii DOH.
29 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:20 Apr 10, 2019
Jkt 247001
• 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
this rulemaking does not involve
technical standards; 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, this proposed action does
not 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 as specified by
Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249,
November 9, 2000).
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: March 26, 2019.
Deborah Jordan,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region IX.
[FR Doc. 2019–07212 Filed 4–10–19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA–R03–OAR–2018–0795; FRL–9992–13–
Region 3]
Approval and Promulgation of Air
Quality Implementation Plans;
Delaware; Negative Declaration for the
Oil and Natural Gas Industry Control
Techniques Guidelines
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
AGENCY:
The Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve a
SUMMARY:
PO 00000
Frm 00015
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
state implementation plan (SIP) revision
submitted by the State of Delaware. This
revision pertains to a negative
declaration for the October 2016 Oil and
Natural Gas Control Techniques
Guidelines (CTG) (2016 Oil and Gas
CTG). This action is being taken under
the Clean Air Act (CAA).
DATES: Written comments must be
received on or before May 13, 2019.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments,
identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R03–
OAR–2018–0795 at https://
www.regulations.gov, or via email to
Spielberger.susan@epa.gov. For
comments submitted at Regulations.gov,
follow the online instructions for
submitting comments. Once submitted,
comments cannot be edited or removed
from Regulations.gov. For either manner
of submission, EPA may publish any
comment received to its public docket.
Do not submit electronically any
information you consider to be
confidential business information (CBI)
or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Multimedia
submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be
accompanied by a written comment.
The written comment is considered the
official comment and should include
discussion of all points you wish to
make. EPA will generally not consider
comments or comment contents located
outside of the primary submission (i.e.
on the web, cloud, or other file sharing
system). For additional submission
methods, please contact the person
identified in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section. For the
full EPA public comment policy,
information about CBI or multimedia
submissions, and general guidance on
making effective comments, please visit
https://www2.epa.gov/dockets/
commenting-epa-dockets.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Erin
Trouba, (215) 814–2023, or by email at
trouba.erin@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background
The revision consists of the State of
Delaware’s negative declaration for the
October 2016 Oil and Natural Gas CTG.
On October 27, 2016, EPA published in
the Federal Register the ‘‘Release of
Final Control Techniques Guidelines for
the Oil and Natural Gas Industry.’’ 81
FR 74798. The CTG provided
information to state, local, and tribal air
agencies to assist them in determining
reasonably available control technology
(RACT) for volatile organic compounds
(VOC) emissions from select oil and
natural gas industry emission sources.
Section 182(b)(2)(A) of the CAA requires
that for ozone nonattainment areas
E:\FR\FM\11APP1.SGM
11APP1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 70 (Thursday, April 11, 2019)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 14634-14640]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2019-07212]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA-R09-OAR-2018-0744; FRL-9992-01-Region 9]
Air Plan Approval; Hawaii; Regional Haze Progress Report
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to
approve Hawaii's Regional Haze Progress Report (``Progress Report'' or
``Report'') submitted by the State of Hawaii on October 20, 2017, as a
revision to its state implementation plan (SIP). Hawaii submitted its
Progress Report and a negative declaration stating that further
revision of the existing regional haze plan is not needed at this time.
The Progress Report addresses the federal Regional Haze Rule (RHR)
requirements under the Clean Air Act (CAA) to submit a report
describing progress in achieving reasonable progress goals (RPGs)
established for regional haze and a determination of the adequacy of
the State's existing plan addressing regional haze. Hawaii's Progress
Report notes that Hawaii has implemented the measures in the regional
haze plan due to be in place by the date of the Progress Report and
that visibility in Class I areas affected by emissions from Hawaii is
improving. The EPA is proposing to approve Hawaii's determination that
the State's regional haze plan is adequate to meet RPGs in Class I
areas affected by emissions from Hawaii for the first implementation
period, which extended through 2018, and requires no substantive
revision at this time.
DATES: Comments must be received on or before May 13, 2019.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R09-
OAR-2018-0744 at https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online
instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot
be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. The EPA may publish any
comment received to its public docket. Do not submit electronically any
information you consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI)
or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a
written comment. The written comment is considered the official comment
and should include discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA
will generally not consider comments or comment contents located
outside of the primary submission (i.e., on the web, cloud, or other
file sharing system). For additional submission methods, the full EPA
public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions,
and general guidance on making effective comments, please visit https://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Wienke Tax, Air Planning Office, EPA
Region IX, (415) 947-4192, [email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, whenever ``we,''
``us,'' or ``our'' is used, it is intended to refer to the EPA.
Table of Contents
I. Background
A. Description of Regional Haze
B. History of Regional Haze Rule
C. Hawaii's Regional Haze Plan
II. Context for Understanding Hawaii's Progress Report
A. Framework for Measuring Progress
B. Data Sources for Hawaii's Progress Report
III. The EPA's Evaluation of Hawaii's Progress Report
A. Status of Implementation of All Measures Included in the
Regional Haze Implementation Plan
B. Summary of Emissions Reductions
C. Summary of Visibility Conditions
D. Determination of Adequacy
E. Consultation With FLMs
IV. The EPA's Proposed Action
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. Background
A. Description of Regional Haze
Regional haze is visibility impairment produced by many sources and
activities located across a broad geographic area that emit fine
particles
[[Page 14635]]
that impair visibility by scattering and absorbing light, thereby
reducing the clarity, color, and visible distance that one can see.
These fine particles also can cause serious health effects and
mortality in humans and contribute to environmental impacts, such as
acid deposition and eutrophication of water bodies.
B. History of Regional Haze Rule
In section 169A(a)(1) of the CAA Amendments of 1977, Congress
created a program to protect visibility in designated national parks
and wilderness areas, establishing as a national goal the ``prevention
of any future, and the remedying of any existing, impairment of
visibility in mandatory class I Federal areas which impairment results
from manmade air pollution.'' In accordance with section 169A of the
CAA and after consulting with the Department of the Interior, the EPA
promulgated a list of 156 mandatory Class I federal areas where
visibility is identified as an important value.\1\ In this notice, we
refer to mandatory Class I federal areas on this list as ``Class I
areas.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The Class I areas are listed at 40 CFR part 81, subpart D.
Areas designated as Class I areas consist of national parks
exceeding 6,000 acres, wilderness areas and national memorial parks
exceeding 5,000 acres, and all international parks that were in
existence on August 7, 1977 (42 U.S.C. 7472(a)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
With the CAA Amendments of 1990, Congress added section 169B to
address regional haze issues. The EPA promulgated the RHR on July 1,
1999.\2\ In the RHR, the EPA revised the existing visibility
regulations to integrate provisions addressing regional haze impairment
and to establish a comprehensive visibility protection program for
Class I areas. As defined in the RHR, the RPGs must provide for an
improvement in visibility for the most impaired days (``worst days'')
over the period of the implementation plan and ensure no degradation in
visibility for the least impaired days (``best days'') over the same
period.\3\ The first implementation plan generally covers the period
from 2000-2018 (also known as the first planning period).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ 64 FR 35714 (July 1, 1999). The rule was subsequently
revised on July 6, 2005 (70 FR 39104), October 13, 2006 (71 FR
60612), and January 10, 2017 (82 FR 3078).
\3\ 40 CFR 51.308(d)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Five years after submittal of the initial regional haze plan,
states were required to submit progress reports that evaluate progress
towards the RPGs for each Class I area within the state and in each
Class I area outside the state which may be affected by emissions from
within the state.\4\ States were also required to submit, at the same
time as the progress report, a determination of the adequacy of the
state's existing regional haze plan.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ 40 CFR 51.308(g).
\5\ 40 CFR 51.308(h).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
C. Hawaii's Regional Haze Plan
Hawaii did not submit an initial regional haze SIP. Consequently,
the EPA developed a regional haze federal implementation plan (FIP),
which was promulgated on October 9, 2012.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ 77 FR 61478.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On October 20, 2017, the State of Hawaii submitted the Progress
Report to meet the requirements of 40 CFR 51.308(g) and (h). In
accordance with these requirements, the Progress Report describes the
status of the implementation of measures included in the regional haze
implementation plan,\7\ emissions reductions from these measures, and
improvements in visibility conditions at the State's Class I areas. The
Progress Report also includes a negative declaration stating that
further revision of the existing implementation plan is not needed in
accordance with 40 CFR 51.308(h)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ ``Implementation plan,'' as defined in 40 CFR 51.301,
includes FIP provisions, as well as SIPs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The EPA is proposing to approve Hawaii's Progress Report.
II. Context for Understanding Hawaii's Progress Report
To better understand Hawaii's Progress Report as well as the EPA's
evaluation of it, this section provides background on the regional haze
program in Hawaii.
A. Framework for Measuring Progress
The EPA has established a metric for determining visibility
conditions at Class I areas referred to as the ``deciview index,''
which is measured in deciviews (dv), as defined in 40 CFR 51.301. A
deciview expresses uniform changes in haziness in terms of common
increments across the entire range of visibility conditions, from
pristine to extremely hazy conditions. Deciviews are determined by
using air quality data collected from the Interagency Monitoring of
Protected Visual Environments (IMPROVE) network monitors to estimate
light extinction, and then transforming the value of light extinction
using a logarithmic function.
Hawaii has two Class I areas within its borders: Haleakala National
Park (NP) on Maui Island and Hawaii Volcanoes NP on the island of
Hawaii. For this Progress Report, monitoring data representing
visibility conditions in Hawaii's two Class I areas were based on the
three IMPROVE monitors identified in Table 1.\8\ As shown in the table,
the HACR1 and HALE1 monitoring sites represent Haleakala NP, and the
HAVO1 site represents Hawaii Volcanoes NP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ The HALE1 IMPROVE monitor began operation on Maui in 1990 at
a site about 3.5 miles outside of Haleakala NP. In 2007, a second
IMPROVE monitor (HACR1) was installed at a higher elevation within
Haleakala NP. The HACR1 site was considered more representative of
visibility conditions within Haleakala NP and replaced the HALE1
monitoring station in 2012. See Progress Report, 3, and Appendix.A.
Table 1--Hawaii IMPROVE Monitoring Sites and Represented Class I Areas
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Class I area Site code
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Haleakala NP............................................ \a\ HACR1.
\b\ HALE1.
Hawaii Volcanoes NP..................................... HAVO1.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ Monitoring at the HACR1 site began in 2007.
\b\ The HALE1 monitoring site operated from 2001 to 2011.
Under the RHR, a state's initial regional haze SIP must establish
two RPGs for each of its Class I areas: One for the 20 percent least
impaired days and one for the 20 percent most impaired days. The RPGs
must provide for an improvement in visibility on the 20 percent most
impaired days and ensure no degradation in visibility on the 20 percent
least impaired days, as compared to visibility conditions during the
baseline period. In establishing the RPGs, a state must consider the
uniform rate of visibility improvement from the baseline to natural
conditions in 2064 and the emission reduction measures needed to
achieve that uniform rate. The typical method for determining RPGs is
to use meteorological and air quality modeling to predict the
visibility at Class I areas for the end of the planning period (2018 in
this case). However, the dominant cause of visibility impairment in
Hawaii's Class I areas is sulfate compounds, and over 96 percent of the
sulfate emissions are from Hawaii's volcano. Volcanic eruptions vary
greatly from year to year with no discernable patterns. As a result,
modeling to project overall visibility conditions has little value for
Hawaii's Class I areas. Consequently, the EPA set the RPGs for Hawaii's
two Class I areas based on island-specific inventories for Maui and
Hawaii, the islands that contain Class I areas.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ 77 FR 31692, 31707-13 (May 29, 2012).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. Data Sources for Hawaii's Progress Report
To demonstrate visibility progress, Hawaii used data from the
Western
[[Page 14636]]
Regional Air Partnership (WRAP) Technical Support System (TSS). Hawaii
used the most recent visibility information available from the WRAP TSS
as a technical basis for its progress report. It also used the
technical data and analyses in a report titled ``Western Regional Air
Partnership Regional Haze Rule Reasonable Progress Summary Report''
(``WRAP Report''), dated June 28, 2013.\10\ The WRAP Report was
prepared for WRAP, ``on behalf of the 15 western state members in the
WRAP region, to provide the technical basis for use by the western
states to develop the first of RHR individual Progress Reports.'' \11\
Hawaii's Progress Report presented data for both of its Class I areas,
comparing visibility conditions for the 20 percent most impaired and 20
percent least impaired days during the baseline period (2000-2004), the
current period for the Progress Report (2011-2015), and years between
those periods.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ See Progress Report, 3, and Western Regional Air
Partnership Regional Haze Rule Reasonable Progress Summary Report
(June 28, 2013). https://www.wrapair2.org/documents/Fullpercent20Report/WRAP_RHRPR_Full_Report_without_Appendices.PDF.
(Also included as Appendix A of the Progress Report).
\11\ Progress Report, Appendix A, 12.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
III. The EPA's Evaluation of Hawaii's Progress Report
This section describes the contents of Hawaii's Progress Report and
the EPA's review of the report, the determination of adequacy required
by 40 CFR 51.308(h), and the requirement for state and Federal Land
Manager (FLM) coordination in 40 CFR 51.308(i).
A. Status of Implementation of All Measures Included in the Regional
Haze Implementation Plan
In its Progress Report, Hawaii described the status of the control
measures that the EPA and the State relied on to implement the regional
haze program: The sulfur dioxide (SO2) emissions cap from
the FIP; the State's renewable portfolio standard and energy efficiency
programs; the North American Emissions Control Area (ECA); federal
mobile source regulations; the State's open burning regulations; and
facility closures. Hawaii included a description of these programs,
which are summarized below. Hawaii also explained that the FIP did not
include any controls to implement best available retrofit technology
(BART).
1. SO2 Emissions Cap for Electricity Generating Units (EGUs)
The Hawaii regional haze FIP established an SO2
emissions cap in 40 CFR 52.633(d). Affected EGUs shall not emit or
cause to be emitted more than 3,550 tons per year (tpy), summed over 5
units using a rolling 12-month period. These units are Kanoelehua Hill
Generating Station, boilers Hill 5 and Hill 6; Puna Power Plant, boiler
1; and Shipman Power Plant, boilers S-3 and S-4. The primary fuel for
these boilers is fuel oil number 6. The Shipman Power Plant permanently
closed on December 31, 2015; thus, the SO2 emissions cap
applies only to the affected EGUs at Kanoelehua Hill and Puna. The
Hawaii Department of Health (DOH) provided copies of the current air
permits for each facility to the EPA in November 2018 to document the
State's implementation of the FIP.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ See letter dated November 15, 2018, from Bruce S. Anderson,
Ph.D., Director of Health, Hawaii DOH, to Mr. Michael Stoker,
Regional Administrator, U.S. EPA Region 9.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) and Energy Efficiency Programs
Hawaii has state-level renewable energy and energy efficiency
programs for greenhouse gas reduction that have reduced electricity
generation. These programs have also resulted in reductions in
emissions of SO2 and nitrogen oxides (NOX) due to
reduced fuel use. As part of Hawaii's RPS, Hawaiian Electric Light
Company (HELCO) plans to achieve 100 percent renewable energy by
2045.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ Progress Report, 14.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Hawaii Agricultural and Open Burning Programs
The Hawaii DOH regulates open burning, including agricultural,
residential, and prescribed burning. For agricultural burning, the
State has established a permit program for burning green waste, which
may be restricted during times of drought, fire hazard, or designated
``No Burn'' periods. Hawaii Commercial and Sugar Company (HC&S) on Maui
had agricultural burn permits to burn cane, but the facility closed in
2016.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ Id. at 16.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. Facility Closures
Table. 2.2-1 in the Progress Report lists three sources that have
closed, including HC&S Puunene Sugar Mill, Maui Pineapple Company, and
HELCO Shipman. Although these closures were not required under the FIP,
all of these closures have reduced emissions of visibility-impairing
pollutants.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ Id. at 17.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. North American ECA
The North American ECA became enforceable in August 2012 and
regulates emissions of NOX, SO2, and fine
particulate from ships. The North American ECA includes waters adjacent
to the eight main Hawaiian Islands. The North American ECA emissions
standards include a decreasing fuel sulfur limit and engine
NOX standards, both of which will contribute to reductions
of visibility-impairing pollutants near Class I areas in Hawaii.
6. Federal Mobile Source Controls
In its Progress Report, Hawaii discussed several rules the EPA has
promulgated to reduce emissions from mobile sources. In 2001, the EPA
promulgated a rule with an emissions limit for NOX from
heavy-duty highway vehicles of 0.20 grams per brake-horsepower-hour,
which was phased in between 2007 and 2010.\16\ In 2004, the EPA
promulgated a Clean Air Nonroad Diesel Rule to reduce emissions from
nonroad diesel engines and/or fuels, including construction,
agricultural, industrial, airport, locomotive, and marine vessel
engines. The rule established limits to be phased in by 2014.\17\ The
EPA also issued new fuel sulfur requirements for ultra-low sulfur
diesel fuel in 2006.\18\ Federal Tier II fuel standards reduced the
sulfur content of gasoline by up to 90 percent.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ 66 FR 5002 (January 18, 2001).
\17\ 69 FR 38958 (June 29, 2004).
\18\ 65 FR 6698 (February 10, 2000).
\19\ See https://www.epa.gov/gasoline-standards/gasoline-sulfur.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. Summary of Emissions Reductions
Section 5.0 of the Hawaii Progress Report includes a summary of the
emissions reductions achieved throughout the State through
implementation of the control measures relied upon to achieve
reasonable progress. In addition, the Progress Report summarizes
changes in emissions inventories for all major visibility-impairing
pollutants from point, area, on-road mobile, non-road mobile, marine,
and anthropogenic fire source categories in the State. For these
summaries, emissions during the baseline years are represented using a
2005 inventory, which was the most complete inventory available at the
time the regional haze FIP was developed. It was developed with support
from ENVIRON International Corporation and some emissions estimates
were refined by Hawaii DOH. The EPA also worked with contractors at the
University of North Carolina and ICF International on estimating on-
road emissions.\20\
[[Page 14637]]
Differences between inventories are represented as the difference
between the 2005 inventory developed for the Hawaii regional haze FIP
and a 2011 inventory based on the 2011 National Emissions Inventory.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\ Technical Support Document for the Proposed Action on the
Federal Implementation Plan for the Regional Haze Program in the
State of Hawaii, U.S. EPA Region 9, May 14, 2012.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hawaii's Progress Report noted that in the SO2 emissions
inventory, volcanic emissions dominate the inventory, far exceeding
anthropogenic sources of SO2. Likewise, nonanthropogenic
particulate matter (PM10) emissions from sea spray dominate
the PM10 inventory. Specifically, Hawaii identified in the
Progress Report:
SO2 emissions reductions achieved through
controls on point and area sources with slight (less than 1 percent of
total SO2 emissions) increases between 2005 and 2011 in
other fire/prescribed burning;
Decreases in NOX emissions from area sources
and mobile sources, which more than offset increases in point source
emissions and emissions from other fire/prescribed burning; and
A slight (4 percent) increase in statewide volatile
organic compound (VOC) emissions due to increases from point and area
sources that was not offset by decreases from mobile sources.
The emissions inventories were complicated by the changes and
enhancements that have occurred between development of the baseline and
current period emissions inventories. Hawaii stated that some of the
differences between inventories are more reflective of changes in
inventory methodology, rather that changes in actual emissions. For
example, both biogenic VOC emissions and volcanic emissions were
updated.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\ See Progress Report, 42, footnotes 4 and 5 to Table 5.0-3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notwithstanding these differences between the 2005 and 2011
emissions inventory methodologies, estimated emissions for
SO2, NOX, VOC, PM10 and ammonia
(NH3) are summarized in Tables 2 and 3 below.
Table 2--2005 Statewide Emissions Inventory
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SO2 NOX VOC PM10 NH3
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Anthropogenic Sources
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point Sources................... 27,072 22,745 2,695 3,536 12
Area Sources.................... 3,716 1,509 16,920 33,408 11,136
Agricultural Burning............ 178 406 535 1,567 60
Other Fire...................... 0 1 7 7 0
On-Road Mobile.................. 321 20,642 12,066 638 1,085
Non-Road Mobile................. 669 6,296 6,383 649 0
Marine.......................... 3,619 5,624 209 398 0
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Anthropogenic......... 35,575 57,223 38,815 40,203 12,298
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Natural Sources
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Volcano......................... 961,366 0 0 0 0
Sea Spray....................... 0 0 0 382,637 0
Windblown Dust.................. 0 0 0 46,808 0
Wildfire........................ 591 2,156 4,729 4,771 540
Biogenic........................ 0 4,617 130,153 0 0
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Natural............... 961,957 6,773 134,882 439,216 540
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
All Sources
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Emissions................. 997,531 63,996 173,697 479,419 12,838
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: Progress Report, 42.
Table 3--2011 Statewide Emissions Inventory
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SO2 NOX VOC PM10 NH3
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Anthropogenic Sources
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point Sources................... 22,047 28,982 3,059 2,813 1,031
Area Sources.................... 3,331 1,176 18,425 34,803 7,547
Agricultural Burning............ 178 405 535 1,567 148
Other Fire...................... 36 389 1,672 853 59
On-Road Mobile.................. 102 15,503 11,180 305 412
Non-Road Mobile................. 7 3,842 5,428 403 6
Marine.......................... 2,037 4,895 154 338 3
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Anthropogenic......... 27,738 55,192 40,453 41,420 9,749
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Natural Sources
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Volcano......................... 406,030 0 0 0 0
Sea Spray....................... 0 0 0 382,637 0
Windblown Dust.................. 0 0 0 46,808 0
Wildfire........................ 9 99 390 162 12
[[Page 14638]]
Biogenic........................ 0 4,617 130,153 0 0
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Natural............... 406,039 4,716 130,543 429,607 12
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
All Sources
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Emissions................. 433,768 59,808 170,996 471,027 9,761
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: Progress Report, 42.
Changes in emissions from 2005 to 2011 for SO2,
NOX, and VOC, respectively, are noted in absolute value and
as a percentage of baseline emissions presented in tables 4, 5, and 6.
Table 4--Changes in Anthropogenic SO2 Emissions and Percent Changes From 2005-2011
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Statewide SO2 (tpy)
Source category ---------------------------------------------------------------
2005 2011 Change Percent change
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point Sources................................... 27,072 22,047 -5,025 -19
Area Sources.................................... 3,716 3,331 -385 -10
Agricultural Burning............................ 178 178 0 0
Other Fire/Prescribed Burning................... 0 36 36 >100
On-Road Mobile Sources.......................... 321 102 -219 -68
Non-Road Mobile Sources......................... 669 7 -662 -99
Marine.......................................... 3,619 2,037 -1,582 -44
---------------------------------------------------------------
Total Anthropogenic......................... 35,575 27,738 -7,837 -22
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: Progress Report, 44.
Table 5--Changes in Anthropogenic NOX Emissions and Percent Changes From 2005-2011
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Statewide SO2 (tpy)
Source category ---------------------------------------------------------------
2005 2011 Change Percent change
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point Sources................................... 22,745 28,892 6,237 27
Area Sources.................................... 1,509 1,176 -333 -22
Agricultural Burning............................ 406 405 -1 -0.2
Other Fire/Prescribed Burning................... 1 389 388 >100
On-Road Mobile Sources.......................... 20,642 15,503 -5,139 -25
Non-Road Mobile Sources......................... 6,296 3,842 -2,454 -39
Marine.......................................... 5,624 4,895 -729 -13
---------------------------------------------------------------
Total Anthropogenic......................... 57,223 55,192 -2,031 -4
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: Progress Report, 45.
Table 6--Changes in Anthropogenic VOC Emissions and Percent Changes From 2005-2011
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Statewide SO2 (tpy)
Source category ---------------------------------------------------------------
2005 2011 Change Percent change
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point Sources................................... 2,695 3,059 364 14
Area Sources.................................... 16,920 18,425 1,505 9
Agricultural Burning............................ 535 535 0 0
Other Fire/Prescribed Burning................... 7 1,672 166 >100
On-Road Mobile Sources.......................... 12,066 11,180 -886 -25
Non-Road Mobile Sources......................... 6,383 5,428 -955 -15
Marine.......................................... 209 154 -55 -26
---------------------------------------------------------------
Total Anthropogenic......................... 38,815 40,452 1,638 4
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: Progress Report, 46.
[[Page 14639]]
In its Progress Report, Hawaii concluded that the control
strategies in the existing regional haze plan are adequate to meet the
2018 RPGs. Progress includes significant reductions in SO2
and NOX emissions from Maui and Hawaii Island point sources,
including the SO2 emissions cap, renewable energy projects,
the retirement of some units, and facility closures.
C. Summary of Visibility Conditions
Hawaii's Progress Report provided visibility data during the
baseline period (2000-2004), the current period for the Progress Report
(2011-2015), and for the rolling 5-year periods between the baseline
and current periods, based on IMPROVE data that were available at the
time Hawaii developed the Progress Report. These RPGs are listed in
Table 7 along with the baseline and current (as of submission of the
Progress Report) visibility conditions.
Table 7--Hawaii Class I Area Visibility Conditions on the 20 Percent Most and Least Impaired Days
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
20% Most impaired days 20% Least impaired days
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2005-09 2005-09
Hawaii Class I area Monitor/region 2000-04 First 2011-15 2018 RPGs 2000-04 First 2011-15 2018 RPGs
Baseline progress current (dv) Baseline progress Current (dv)
(dv) period (dv) period (dv) (dv) period (dv) period (dv)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Haleakala NP.................. \a\ HACR1....... \b\ 9.5 \b\ 10.8 \c\ 9.7 \d\ 13 \e\ 1.0 \e\ 0.9 \f\ 0.6 \g\ 4.5
HALE1........... \b\ 13.3 \b\ 14.8 \e\ 4.5 \e\ 4.4
Hawaii Volcanoes NP........... HAVO1........... \b\ 18.9 \h\ 24.9 \i\ 18.0 \d\ 18.7 \j\ 4.1 \k\ 3.8 \l\ 3.4 \m\ 4.0
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ The HACR1 IMPROVE monitor began operation in 2007, thus 2007-2009 data used for Haleakala NP for the 2005-2009 period. See Progress Report, 26-27.
\b\ Progress Report, Appendix A, Table 6.5-4.
\c\ Id,, Table 4.1-1.
\d\ Id., Table 6.5-5.
\e\ 77 FR 31692, 31713 (May 29, 2012). The RPG for Haleakala was based on monitoring data from HALE1.
\f\ Progress Report, Table 4.1-1.
\g\ Id., Table 7.0-2 (sum of values for all species under ``2018 With FIP'').
\h\ Id., Table 4.2-3.
\i\ Id., Table 4.1-3.
\j\ Id., Table 4.2-4.
\k\ Id.
\l\ Id., Table 4.1-4.
\m\ Id., Table 7.0-2 (sum of values for all species under ``2018 With FIP'').
Based on the information in Chapter 4.0 of the Progress Report,
Hawaii demonstrated that both Class I areas experienced improvements in
visibility for the 20 percent most and least impaired days between the
baseline (2000-2004) and current (2011-2015) visibility periods, as
summarized in table 7 above and shown in tables 4.0-1, 4.0-2, 4.0-3,
4.1-1 and 4.1-2 of the Progress Report. Table 7 also shows that the
five-year average worst days and best days during the current period
(2011-2015) were below (i.e., better than) the 2018 RPGs. Thus, both of
the State's Class I areas are on track to meet or surpass their 2018
RPGs.
Hawaii's Progress Report included an analysis of progress and
impediments to progress. Hawaii evaluated visibility trends from 2007
to 2015 from the HACR1 monitor and 2001 to 2015 at the HAVO1
monitor.\22\ Hawaii noted that five-year rolling averages of the haze
index show slight visibility improvements on both the 20 percent most-
impaired days and more significant visibility improvements for the 20
percent least-impaired days for both Class I areas.\23\ Hawaii's
Progress Report concluded that control strategies in the existing
regional haze plan are adequate to meet the 2018 RPGs. The average
trends for least-impaired days show improvement at both monitoring
locations. Similarly, average trends for most-impaired days show
improvement. The Progress Report also contains a review of Hawaii's
visibility monitoring strategy. In the Progress Report, Hawaii
concludes that the IMPROVE network continues to comply with the
monitoring requirements in the Regional Haze Rule and that no
modifications to Hawaii's visibility monitoring strategy are necessary
at this time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\22\ See Progress Report, 37.
\23\ Id. at 31.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Progress Report did not expressly address Class I areas outside
the state. As explained in our proposed regional haze FIP:
Hawaii lies approximately 2,390 miles southwest of the
Continental United States and has been included by EPA in the
regional haze program, ``because of the potential for emissions from
sources within [its] borders to contribute to regional haze
impairment in Class I areas also located within [Hawaii's] own
jurisdiction.'' \24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\24\ 77 FR 31713 (quoting 64 FR 35714, 35720).
Therefore, we found that emissions from Hawaii were not reasonably
anticipated to contribute to visibility impairment in any mandatory
Class I Federal area located in another state or states.\25\ For the
same reasons, we now find that it was appropriate for Hawaii to exclude
discussion of out-of-state areas in its Progress Report.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\25\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
D. Determination of Adequacy
Within the Progress Report, the State of Hawaii provided a negative
declaration stating that further revision of the existing
implementation plan is not needed in accordance with 40 CFR
51.308(h)(1).\26\ The basis for the State's negative declaration is the
information in the Progress Report and the determination that Hawaii
was on track to achieve 2018 RPGs for the State's Class I areas. Given
the reductions in SO2 and NOX emissions and the
improvements in visibility at the State's Class I areas achieved during
the planning period, the EPA proposes to approve Hawaii's determination
that the existing Hawaii regional haze plan requires no substantive
revisions at this time to achieve the established RPGs for Class I
areas.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\26\ See Progress Report, 81.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
E. Consultation With FLMs
The State of Hawaii invited the FLMs to comment on its draft
Progress Report on May 12, 2017, and provided a 60-day comment period
prior to releasing the report for public comment.\27\ In a letter dated
July 6, 2017, the FLMs concurred with Hawaii's conclusion in its draft
progress report that additional revisions
[[Page 14640]]
to the State's regional haze implementation plan were not needed at
this time.\28\ The EPA proposes to find that Hawaii has addressed the
requirements in 40 CFR 51.308(i).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\27\ See electronic mail dated May 12, 2017, from Michael
Madsen, Hawaii DOH, to Susan Johnson and Patricia Brewer, National
Park Service, requesting comment on Hawaii's Regional Haze Progress
Report, in the docket for today's action.
\28\ See letter dated July 6, 2017, from Patricia Brewer,
National Park Service, to Michael Madsen, Hawaii DOH.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
IV. The EPA's Proposed Action
The EPA is proposing to approve the Hawaii Regional Haze Progress
Report submitted to the EPA on October 20, 2017, as meeting the
applicable requirements of the CAA and RHR, as set forth in 40 CFR
51.308(g). The EPA proposes to approve Hawaii's determination that the
existing regional haze plan is adequate to meet the established RPGs in
Class I areas affected by emissions from Hawaii and requires no
substantive revision at this time. We propose to find that Hawaii
fulfilled the requirements in 40 CFR 51.308(i) regarding state
coordination with FLMs.
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 CAA and applicable
Federal regulations.\29\ 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 proposed 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
proposed action:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\29\ 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 (82 FR 9339, February 2,
2017) regulatory action because actions such as SIP approvals are
exempted 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 this rulemaking does not involve technical standards; 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, this proposed action does not 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 as specified
by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).
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: March 26, 2019.
Deborah Jordan,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region IX.
[FR Doc. 2019-07212 Filed 4-10-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
