Air Plan Approval; Hawaii; Regional Haze Progress Report, 39754-39756 [2019-17124]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
39754
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 155 / Monday, August 12, 2019 / Rules and Regulations
Dated: August 6, 2019.
Thomas C.J. Doolittle
Acting Assistant Regional Director, U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service
Dated: August 6, 2019 .
Thomas Whitford
Subsistence Program Leader, USDA–Forest
Service.
[FR Doc. 2019–17136 Filed 8–9–19; 8:45 am]
I. Background Information
II. Public Comment
III. Final Action
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
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
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
AGENCY:
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.
jspears on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES
SUMMARY:
15:59 Aug 09, 2019
Wienke Tax, Air Planning Office (AIR–
2), EPA Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street,
San Francisco, CA, 94105; (415) 947–
4192; tax.wienke@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Throughout this document whenever
‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’ or ‘‘our’’ is used, we mean
the EPA.
Table of Contents
BILLING CODE 4333–15–P; 3411–15–P
VerDate Sep<11>2014
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Jkt 247001
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.
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 humangenerated 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
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.
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
2 84
FR 14634, 14638.
at 14638, Tables 4–6.
4 77 FR 31692, 31707.
3 Id.
1 84
PO 00000
FR 14634.
Frm 00032
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\12AUR1.SGM
12AUR1
jspears on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 155 / Monday, August 12, 2019 / Rules and Regulations
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
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:59 Aug 09, 2019
Jkt 247001
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
PO 00000
Frm 00033
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
39755
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,
E:\FR\FM\12AUR1.SGM
12AUR1
39756
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 155 / Monday, August 12, 2019 / Rules and Regulations
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.
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
Subpart M—Hawaii
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:
■
§ 52.620
*
1. The authority citation for part 52
continues to read as follows:
■
Identification of plan.
*
*
(e) * * *
*
*
EPA-APPROVED NON-REGULATORY AND QUASI-REGULATORY MEASURES
Applicable geographic or
nonattainment area or title/
subject
Name of SIP provision
*
*
*
State submittal date
*
EPA approval date
*
Explanation
*
*
*
*
State of Hawaii Air Pollution Control Implementation Plans for Regional Haze
Hawaii State Department of Health 5Year Regional Haze Progress Report
for Federal Implementation Plan, excluding Appendix H, I and J.
*
State-wide .........................
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
3. Section 52.633 is amended by
adding paragraph (e) to read as follows:
■
§ 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
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
jspears on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES
[EPA–R04–OAR–2018–0822; FRL–9997–85–
Region 4]
Air Plan Approval; KY; Jefferson
County Existing and New
Miscellaneous Metal Parts and
Products Surface Coating Operations
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
AGENCY:
The Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) is taking final action to
SUMMARY:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:59 Aug 09, 2019
Jkt 247001
10/20/2017
*
8/12/2019 [Insert Federal
Register Citation].
*
approve two revisions to the Jefferson
County portion of the Kentucky State
Implementation Plan (SIP), provided by
the Commonwealth of Kentucky,
through the Kentucky Division of Air
Quality (KDAQ), through a letter dated
March 15, 2018. The revisions were
submitted by KDAQ on behalf of the
Louisville Metro Air Pollution Control
District (also referred to herein as
Jefferson County) and add a
recordkeeping provision for certain
sources of volatile organic compounds
along with other administrative
changes. EPA is approving the changes
because they are consistent with the
Clean Air Act (CAA or Act).
DATES: This rule is effective September
11, 2019.
ADDRESSES: EPA has established a
docket for this action under Docket ID
No. EPA–R04–OAR–2018–0822. All
documents in the docket are listed on
the www.regulations.gov website.
Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available,
i.e., Confidential Business Information
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 either
electronically through
PO 00000
Frm 00034
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at
the Air Regulatory Management Section,
Air Planning and Implementation
Branch, Air and Radiation Division
(formerly the Air, Pesticides and Toxics
Management Division), U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency,
Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW, Atlanta,
Georgia 30303–8960. EPA requests that
if at all possible, you contact the person
listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT section to schedule your
inspection. The Regional Office’s
official hours of business are Monday
through Friday 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.,
excluding Federal holidays.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Evan Adams of the Air Regulatory
Management Section, Air Planning and
Implementation Branch, Air and
Radiation Division, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth
Street SW, Atlanta, Georgia 30303–8960.
The telephone number is (404) 562–
9009. Mr. Adams can also be reached
via electronic mail at adams.evan@
epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background
EPA is taking final action to approve
changes to the Jefferson County portion
of the Kentucky SIP that were provided
to EPA through a letter dated March 15,
E:\FR\FM\12AUR1.SGM
12AUR1
]]>Agencies
[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
