Air Quality State Implementation Plans; Approval and Promulgations; Hawaii; Infrastructure SIP, 40266-40269 [2019-17125]

Download as PDF 40266 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 157 / Wednesday, August 14, 2019 / Rules and Regulations khammond on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with RULES Priority Mail & First-Class Package Service Contract 83 Priority Mail & First-Class Package Service Contract 84 Priority Mail & First-Class Package Service Contract 85 Priority Mail & First-Class Package Service Contract 86 Priority Mail & First-Class Package Service Contract 87 Priority Mail & First-Class Package Service Contract 88 Priority Mail & First-Class Package Service Contract 89 Priority Mail & First-Class Package Service Contract 90 Priority Mail & First-Class Package Service Contract 91 Priority Mail & First-Class Package Service Contract 92 Priority Mail & First-Class Package Service Contract 93 Priority Mail & First-Class Package Service Contract 94 Priority Mail & First-Class Package Service Contract 95 Priority Mail & First-Class Package Service Contract 96 Priority Mail & First-Class Package Service Contract 97 Priority Mail & First-Class Package Service Contract 98 Priority Mail & First-Class Package Service Contract 99 Priority Mail & First-Class Package Service Contract 100 Priority Mail & First-Class Package Service Contract 101 Priority Mail & First-Class Package Service Contract 102 Priority Mail & First-Class Package Service Contract 103 Priority Mail & First-Class Package Service Contract 104 Priority Mail & Parcel Select Contract 2 Priority Mail Express & First-Class Package Service Contract 1 Priority Mail Express & First-Class Package Service Contract 2 Priority Mail Express & First-Class Package Service Contract 3 Outbound International * Global Expedited Package Services (GEPS) Contracts GEPS 3 GEPS 5 GEPS 6 GEPS 7 GEPS 8 GEPS 9 GEPS 10 GEPS 11 Global Bulk Economy (GBE) Contracts Global Plus Contracts Global Plus 1C Global Plus 1D Global Plus 1E Global Plus 2C Global Plus 3 Global Plus 4 Global Plus 5 Global Plus 6 Global Reseller Expedited Package Contracts Global Reseller Expedited Package Services 1 Global Reseller Expedited Package Services 2 VerDate Sep<11>2014 15:49 Aug 13, 2019 Jkt 247001 Global Reseller Expedited Package Services 3 Global Reseller Expedited Package Services 4 Global Expedited Package Services (GEPS)— Non-Published Rates Global Expedited Package Services (GEPS)— Non-Published Rates 2 Global Expedited Package Services (GEPS)— Non-Published Rates 3 Global Expedited Package Services (GEPS)— Non-Published Rates 4 Global Expedited Package Services (GEPS)— Non-Published Rates 5 Global Expedited Package Services (GEPS)— Non-Published Rates 6 Global Expedited Package Services (GEPS)— Non-Published Rates 7 Global Expedited Package Services (GEPS)— Non-Published Rates 8 Global Expedited Package Services (GEPS)— Non-Published Rates 9 Global Expedited Package Services (GEPS)— Non-Published Rates 10 Global Expedited Package Services (GEPS)— Non-Published Rates 11 Global Expedited Package Services (GEPS)— Non-Published Rates 12 Global Expedited Package Services (GEPS)— Non-Published Rates 13 Global Expedited Package Services (GEPS)— Non-Published Rates 14 Priority Mail International Regional Rate Boxes—Non-Published Rates Outbound Competitive International Merchandise Return Service Agreement with Royal Mail Group, Ltd. Priority Mail International Regional Rate Boxes Contracts Priority Mail International Regional Rate Boxes Contracts 1 Competitive International Merchandise Return Service Agreements with Foreign Postal Operators Competitive International Merchandise Return Service Agreements with Foreign Postal Operators 1 Competitive International Merchandise Return Service Agreements with Foreign Postal Operators 2 Alternative Delivery Provider (ADP) Contracts ADP 1 Alternative Delivery Provider Reseller (ADPR) Contracts ADPR 1 Inbound International * International Business Reply Service (IBRS) Competitive Contracts International Business Reply Service Competitive Contract 1 International Business Reply Service Competitive Contract 3 Inbound Direct Entry Contracts with Customers Inbound Direct Entry Contracts with Foreign Postal Administrations Inbound Direct Entry Contracts with Foreign Postal Administrations Inbound Direct Entry Contracts with Foreign Postal Administrations 1 Inbound EMS Inbound EMS 2 Inbound Air Parcel Post (at non-UPU rates) Royal Mail Group Inbound Air Parcel Post Agreement Inbound Competitive Multi-Service Agreements with Foreign Postal Operators PO 00000 Frm 00042 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 Inbound Competitive Multi-Service Agreements with Foreign Postal Operators 1 Special Services * Address Enhancement Services Greeting Cards, Gift Cards, and Stationery International Ancillary Services International Money Transfer Service— Outbound International Money Transfer Service— Inbound Premium Forwarding Service Shipping and Mailing Supplies Post Office Box Service Competitive Ancillary Services Nonpostal Services * Advertising Licensing of Intellectual Property other than Officially Licensed Retail Products (OLRP) Mail Service Promotion Officially Licensed Retail Products (OLRP) Passport Photo Service Photocopying Service Rental, Leasing, Licensing or other Non-Sale Disposition of Tangible Property Training Facilities and Related Services USPS Electronic Postmark (EPM) Program Market Tests * Customized Delivery Global eCommerce Marketplace (GeM) Ruth Ann Abrams, Acting Secretary. [FR Doc. 2019–17273 Filed 8–13–19; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7710–FW–P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA–R09–OAR–2018–0806; FRL–9998–04– Region 9] Air Quality State Implementation Plans; Approval and Promulgations; Hawaii; Infrastructure SIP Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Final rule. AGENCY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is approving a state implementation plan (SIP) submission from the State of Hawaii regarding certain Clean Air Act (CAA or ‘‘Act’’) requirements related to interstate transport for the 2008 ozone national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS). The interstate transport requirements consist of several elements; this approval pertains only to provisions requiring that SIPs prohibit sources or other types of emissions activity in one state from emitting any air pollutant in amounts that will contribute significantly to nonattainment and interference with maintenance of the 2008 ozone NAAQS in other states. The SUMMARY: E:\FR\FM\14AUR1.SGM 14AUR1 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 157 / Wednesday, August 14, 2019 / Rules and Regulations EPA is approving Hawaii’s August 6, 2015 SIP submittal on the basis that it addresses two requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), which we refer to as prong 1 (significant contribution to nonattainment of the NAAQS in any other state) and prong 2 (interference with maintenance of the NAAQS in any other state). The EPA refers to SIP revisions addressing the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) as ‘‘good neighbor SIPs’’ or ‘‘interstate transport SIPs.’’ This rule is effective on September 13, 2019. DATES: The EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID No. EPA–R09–OAR–2018–0806. 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. ADDRESSES: FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 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 I. Background Information II. Public Comment III. Final Action IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews khammond on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with RULES I. Background Information On February 28, 2019, the EPA published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) proposing to approve the Hawaii Department of Health’s (DOH) August 6, 2015 submittal addressing two requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I).1 A detailed discussion of Hawaii’s good neighbor SIP and the EPA’s rationale for approving the SIP revision is provided in the NPRM and will not be restated here. 1 84 FR 6736. VerDate Sep<11>2014 II. Public Comment The EPA’s proposed action provided a 30-day public comment period that ended on April 1, 2019. During the comment period, we received one comment. We summarize the comment below and provide our response. Comment 1: The commenter states that the EPA’s preamble for its proposed action summarizes trajectory analyses submitted by Hawaii and that the EPA concludes that ‘‘[a] very small fraction of emissions arrives in the continental United States (U.S.) more than two days after release and a slightly larger fraction arrives five days after release.’’ The commenter states that it is unclear whether this factual assertion was made by the state or whether it is the EPA’s own conclusion. The commenter goes on to assert that it is not possible to conclude from wind trajectories what fraction of emissions from Hawaii reach the continental U.S. The commenter concludes by stating that the EPA cannot base its approval of the good neighbor SIP on this factual assertion, as it is not supported by the cited evidence. Response 1: This statement is the EPA’s own conclusion. We agree with the commenter that it is not possible to precisely quantify the fraction of emissions from Hawaii that reaches the continental U.S. based on the trajectory analysis submitted by Hawaii. This analysis establishes the time to transport emissions to the continental U.S., but does not address the deposition, chemical transformation, and dispersion that would occur during transport. Quantifying these factors would require modeling, which, as explained in our proposal, we do not believe is necessary for an isolated state such as Hawaii. However, based on the time and distance of transport, as well as the fact that a certain degree of deposition, chemical transformation, and dispersion would necessarily occur over such time and distance, we believe it is reasonable to conclude that the fraction of emissions from Hawaii that would reach the continental U.S. would be relatively small. The commenter has provided no evidence to contradict this conclusion. Furthermore, this conclusion was only one factor in the overall weight of evidence analysis that we used to assess Hawaii’s interstate transport obligations with respect to the 2008 ozone NAAQS. Another key factor was that Hawaii’s total emissions of ozone precursors are significantly lower than emissions of these pollutants from several continental states, including Colorado.2 2 84 15:49 Aug 13, 2019 Jkt 247001 PO 00000 Based on modeling, the EPA has found that Colorado’s emissions do not contribute significantly to nonattainment in downwind states.3 Given that emissions from Colorado are over five times greater than those from Hawaii, and Colorado is more than 2,000 miles closer to nonattainment receptors than Hawaii, it is unlikely that Hawaii’s emissions significantly contribute to nonattainment. Comment 2: The commenter notes that the preamble to the EPA’s proposed rule states that Hawaii’s emissions are declining. The commenter asserts that the approval of a good neighbor SIP with respect to Prong 1 must be based on the effects that emissions from the upwind state are having on other states at this time, not on the effect of lower emissions projected to prevail in the future. The commenter states that the EPA’s reference to future levels of emissions should not be part of the EPA’s rationale for approving the SIP with respect to the Prong 1 requirement. The commenter acknowledges that the fact that future emissions are expected to be less than current emissions can be considered in evaluating whether the SIP satisfies Prong 2. The commenter requests that the EPA more logically state its rationale for approval of the SIP. Response 2: The commenter is incorrect that an approval of a good neighbor SIP with respect to Prong 1 must be based solely on the effects emissions from the upwind state are having on other states at this time. Prong 1 requires SIPs to include adequate provisions prohibiting emission ‘‘which will contribute significantly to nonattainment’’ in another state.4 The EPA has interpreted this phrase to refer to ‘‘sources that presently and at some point in the future ‘will’ contribute to nonattainment’’ and the D.C. Circuit Court has upheld this interpretation as reasonable in North Carolina v. EPA (‘‘North Carolina’’).5 Consistent with this interpretation, the EPA has routinely approved interstate transport SIPs that rely on future year modeling.6 In particular, as 3 80 FR 72937 (November 23, 2015) (proposed rule); 81 FR 7706 (February 16, 2016) (final rule). 4 CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). 5 North Carolina v. EPA, 531 F.3d 896, 914 (D.C. Cir. 2008). 6 See, e.g., 83 FR 65093 (Final approval of California’s interstate transport SIP for ozone, fine particulate matter, and sulfur dioxide); Cf. 76 FR 48208 (Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR), promulgating federal implementation plans (FIPs) addressing good neighbor obligations for ozone and fine particulate matter); 81 FR 74504 (CSAPR FR 6736, 6738. Frm 00043 Fmt 4700 40267 Continued Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\14AUR1.SGM 14AUR1 40268 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 157 / Wednesday, August 14, 2019 / Rules and Regulations khammond on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with RULES noted in the preamble to the proposed action, the EPA’s historical approach to addressing interstate transport under the good neighbor provision has been to evaluate states’ obligations to address downwind contributions using a multistep process. This process involves identifying downwind air quality problems; identifying upwind states that impact those downwind air quality problems sufficiently such that they are considered ‘‘linked’’ and therefore warrant further review and analysis; identifying the emissions reductions necessary (if any), considering cost and air quality factors to prevent the linked upwind states from contributing significantly to nonattainment or interfering with maintenance of the NAAQS at the locations of the downwind air quality problems; and adopting permanent and enforceable measures needed to achieve those emissions reductions. When the EPA identified downwind air quality problems as part of the 2016 Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR) Update, we used air quality modeling projections for the (then) future analytic year of 2017,7 consistent with the North Carolina decision.8 The EPA also used a 2017 compliance deadline to ensure that the emissions reductions achieved through implementing the CSAPR Update would be made prior to the July 20, 2018 moderate attainment deadline,9 again in conformance with North Carolina.10 Because Hawaii was not part of the EPA’s air quality modeling analysis for the CSAPR Update, the EPA used a weight of evidence analysis to assess Hawaii’s interstate transport obligations with respect to the 2008 ozone NAAQS. This approach included reviewing Hawaii’s recent emissions history that showed emissions have decreased over time and are substantially lower than emissions from California, Arizona, Colorado, and Texas, as shown in Table 1 of our proposed rule,11 and reviewing Hawaii’s transport patterns using trajectory analysis. We then compared the emissions data and the distance between Hawaii and receptors in the continental U.S. with the much higher emissions levels and much smaller distances between upwind and downwind states with known, modeled Update, promulgating FIPs addressing good neighbor obligations for ozone). 7 81 FR 74504, 74516. See 84 FR 6736 for additional details on the CSAPR Update. 8 531 F.3d 914. 9 81 FR 74504, 74516. 10 531 F.3d 911–12 (holding that the EPA must coordinate interstate transport compliance deadlines with downwind attainment deadlines). 11 84 FR 6736, 6738. VerDate Sep<11>2014 15:49 Aug 13, 2019 Jkt 247001 linkages in the continental U.S. In other words, our analysis considered both the absolute level of recent emissions from Hawaii and the downward trend in these emissions. Based on this analysis, the EPA concludes that emissions from Hawaii will not significantly contribute to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the 2008 ozone NAAQS in any other state. Our approval of Hawaii’s interstate transport SIP is based on this determination. III. Final Action For the reasons described in our responses to comments, the comments received do not alter our proposed determination that emissions from Hawaii will not significantly contribute to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the 2008 ozone NAAQS in any other state. Therefore, the EPA is approving Hawaii’s 2008 ozone transport SIP, submitted by Hawaii DOH on August 6, 2015, as meeting the applicable requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) as a revision to the Hawaii SIP. 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 Act. 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); PO 00000 Frm 00044 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 • 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 Act; 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 15, 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 and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. This action may E:\FR\FM\14AUR1.SGM 14AUR1 40269 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 157 / Wednesday, August 14, 2019 / Rules and Regulations 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, Infrastructure SIP, Interstate transport, Nitrogen oxides, Ozone, Volatile organic compounds. Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. Dated: July 30, 2019. Deborah Jordan, Acting Regional Administrator, EPA Region IX. Chapter I, title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows: PART 52—[AMENDED] 1. The authority citation for Part 52 continues to read as follows: ■ Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. ‘‘Hawaii State Implementation Plan Revision to Address CAA Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(l) for the 2008 Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard, excluding Attachment 3’’ after the entry for ‘‘Hawaii State Implementation Plan Revision, National Ambient Air Quality Standards for 2008 Ozone and 2010 Nitrogen Dioxide, Clean Air Act Section 110(a)(1) & (2), excluding attachment 3, and appendices A, B, and C.’’ The revisions and additions read as follows: Subpart M—Hawaii § 52.620 2. In § 52.620, amend the table in paragraph (e) by adding an entry for * ■ Identification of plan. * * (e) * * * * * EPA APPROVED HAWAII NONREGULATORY PROVISIONS AND QUASI-REGULATORY MEASURES Applicable geographic or nonattainment area Name of SIP provision * * * State submittal date * EPA approval date * Explanation * * State of Hawaii Air Pollution Control Implementation Plans for Nitrogen Dioxide, Ozone, PM2.5, and Lead * * * Hawaii State Implementation Statewide ............................... Plan Revision to Address CAA Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(l) for the 2008 Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard, excluding Attachment 3. * * * [FR Doc. 2019–17125 Filed 8–13–19; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560–50–P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 180 [EPA–HQ–OPP–2016–0641; FRL–9996–35] Clonostachys rosea Strain CR–7; Exemption From the Requirement of a Tolerance Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Final rule. AGENCY: This regulation establishes an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance for residues of Clonostachys rosea strain CR–7 in or on all food commodities when used in accordance with label directions and good agricultural practices. Bee Vectoring Technology, Inc. submitted a petition to EPA under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), requesting an exemption from the requirement of a khammond on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with RULES SUMMARY: VerDate Sep<11>2014 15:49 Aug 13, 2019 Jkt 247001 * 8/6/2015 * * [Insert Federal Register page number where the document begins, 8/14/19. * tolerance. This regulation eliminates the need to establish a maximum permissible level for residues of Clonostachys rosea strain CR–7 in or on all food commodities under FFDCA. DATES: This regulation is effective August 14, 2019. Objections and requests for hearings must be received on or before October 15, 2019 and must be filed in accordance with the instructions provided in 40 CFR part 178 (see also Unit I.C. of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION). ADDRESSES: The docket for this action, identified by docket identification (ID) number EPA–HQ–OPP–2016–0641, is available at https://www.regulations.gov or at the Office of Pesticide Programs Regulatory Public Docket (OPP Docket) in the Environmental Protection Agency Docket Center (EPA/DC), West William Jefferson Clinton Bldg., Rm. 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460–0001. The Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is (202) 566–1744, and the telephone number for the OPP PO 00000 Frm 00045 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 * * Approved SIP revision excludes Attachment 3 (‘‘Summary of Public Participation Proceedings’’). * * Docket is (703) 305–5805. Please review the visitor instructions and additional information about the docket available at https://www.epa.gov/dockets. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Robert McNally, Biopesticides and Pollution Prevention Division (7511P), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460–0001; main telephone number: (703) 305–7090; email address: BPPDFRNotices@epa.gov. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. General Information A. Does this action apply to me? You may be potentially affected by this action if you are an agricultural producer, food manufacturer, or pesticide manufacturer. The following list of North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) codes is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide to help readers determine whether this document applies to them. Potentially affected entities may include: E:\FR\FM\14AUR1.SGM 14AUR1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 157 (Wednesday, August 14, 2019)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 40266-40269]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2019-17125]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R09-OAR-2018-0806; FRL-9998-04-Region 9]


Air Quality State Implementation Plans; Approval and 
Promulgations; Hawaii; Infrastructure SIP

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is approving a state 
implementation plan (SIP) submission from the State of Hawaii regarding 
certain Clean Air Act (CAA or ``Act'') requirements related to 
interstate transport for the 2008 ozone national ambient air quality 
standards (NAAQS). The interstate transport requirements consist of 
several elements; this approval pertains only to provisions requiring 
that SIPs prohibit sources or other types of emissions activity in one 
state from emitting any air pollutant in amounts that will contribute 
significantly to nonattainment and interference with maintenance of the 
2008 ozone NAAQS in other states. The

[[Page 40267]]

EPA is approving Hawaii's August 6, 2015 SIP submittal on the basis 
that it addresses two requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), 
which we refer to as prong 1 (significant contribution to nonattainment 
of the NAAQS in any other state) and prong 2 (interference with 
maintenance of the NAAQS in any other state). The EPA refers to SIP 
revisions addressing the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) as 
``good neighbor SIPs'' or ``interstate transport SIPs.''

DATES: This rule is effective on September 13, 2019.

ADDRESSES: The EPA has established a docket for this action under 
Docket ID No. EPA-R09-OAR-2018-0806. 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 Information

    On February 28, 2019, the EPA published a notice of proposed 
rulemaking (NPRM) proposing to approve the Hawaii Department of 
Health's (DOH) August 6, 2015 submittal addressing two requirements of 
CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I).\1\ A detailed discussion of Hawaii's 
good neighbor SIP and the EPA's rationale for approving the SIP 
revision is provided in the NPRM and will not be restated here.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 84 FR 6736.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Public Comment

    The EPA's proposed action provided a 30-day public comment period 
that ended on April 1, 2019. During the comment period, we received one 
comment. We summarize the comment below and provide our response.
    Comment 1: The commenter states that the EPA's preamble for its 
proposed action summarizes trajectory analyses submitted by Hawaii and 
that the EPA concludes that ``[a] very small fraction of emissions 
arrives in the continental United States (U.S.) more than two days 
after release and a slightly larger fraction arrives five days after 
release.'' The commenter states that it is unclear whether this factual 
assertion was made by the state or whether it is the EPA's own 
conclusion. The commenter goes on to assert that it is not possible to 
conclude from wind trajectories what fraction of emissions from Hawaii 
reach the continental U.S. The commenter concludes by stating that the 
EPA cannot base its approval of the good neighbor SIP on this factual 
assertion, as it is not supported by the cited evidence.
    Response 1: This statement is the EPA's own conclusion. We agree 
with the commenter that it is not possible to precisely quantify the 
fraction of emissions from Hawaii that reaches the continental U.S. 
based on the trajectory analysis submitted by Hawaii. This analysis 
establishes the time to transport emissions to the continental U.S., 
but does not address the deposition, chemical transformation, and 
dispersion that would occur during transport. Quantifying these factors 
would require modeling, which, as explained in our proposal, we do not 
believe is necessary for an isolated state such as Hawaii. However, 
based on the time and distance of transport, as well as the fact that a 
certain degree of deposition, chemical transformation, and dispersion 
would necessarily occur over such time and distance, we believe it is 
reasonable to conclude that the fraction of emissions from Hawaii that 
would reach the continental U.S. would be relatively small. The 
commenter has provided no evidence to contradict this conclusion.
    Furthermore, this conclusion was only one factor in the overall 
weight of evidence analysis that we used to assess Hawaii's interstate 
transport obligations with respect to the 2008 ozone NAAQS. Another key 
factor was that Hawaii's total emissions of ozone precursors are 
significantly lower than emissions of these pollutants from several 
continental states, including Colorado.\2\ Based on modeling, the EPA 
has found that Colorado's emissions do not contribute significantly to 
nonattainment in downwind states.\3\ Given that emissions from Colorado 
are over five times greater than those from Hawaii, and Colorado is 
more than 2,000 miles closer to nonattainment receptors than Hawaii, it 
is unlikely that Hawaii's emissions significantly contribute to 
nonattainment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ 84 FR 6736, 6738.
    \3\ 80 FR 72937 (November 23, 2015) (proposed rule); 81 FR 7706 
(February 16, 2016) (final rule).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comment 2: The commenter notes that the preamble to the EPA's 
proposed rule states that Hawaii's emissions are declining. The 
commenter asserts that the approval of a good neighbor SIP with respect 
to Prong 1 must be based on the effects that emissions from the upwind 
state are having on other states at this time, not on the effect of 
lower emissions projected to prevail in the future. The commenter 
states that the EPA's reference to future levels of emissions should 
not be part of the EPA's rationale for approving the SIP with respect 
to the Prong 1 requirement. The commenter acknowledges that the fact 
that future emissions are expected to be less than current emissions 
can be considered in evaluating whether the SIP satisfies Prong 2. The 
commenter requests that the EPA more logically state its rationale for 
approval of the SIP.
    Response 2: The commenter is incorrect that an approval of a good 
neighbor SIP with respect to Prong 1 must be based solely on the 
effects emissions from the upwind state are having on other states at 
this time. Prong 1 requires SIPs to include adequate provisions 
prohibiting emission ``which will contribute significantly to 
nonattainment'' in another state.\4\ The EPA has interpreted this 
phrase to refer to ``sources that presently and at some point in the 
future `will' contribute to nonattainment'' and the D.C. Circuit Court 
has upheld this interpretation as reasonable in North Carolina v. EPA 
(``North Carolina'').\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I).
    \5\ North Carolina v. EPA, 531 F.3d 896, 914 (D.C. Cir. 2008).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Consistent with this interpretation, the EPA has routinely approved 
interstate transport SIPs that rely on future year modeling.\6\ In 
particular, as

[[Page 40268]]

noted in the preamble to the proposed action, the EPA's historical 
approach to addressing interstate transport under the good neighbor 
provision has been to evaluate states' obligations to address downwind 
contributions using a multistep process. This process involves 
identifying downwind air quality problems; identifying upwind states 
that impact those downwind air quality problems sufficiently such that 
they are considered ``linked'' and therefore warrant further review and 
analysis; identifying the emissions reductions necessary (if any), 
considering cost and air quality factors to prevent the linked upwind 
states from contributing significantly to nonattainment or interfering 
with maintenance of the NAAQS at the locations of the downwind air 
quality problems; and adopting permanent and enforceable measures 
needed to achieve those emissions reductions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See, e.g., 83 FR 65093 (Final approval of California's 
interstate transport SIP for ozone, fine particulate matter, and 
sulfur dioxide); Cf. 76 FR 48208 (Cross-State Air Pollution Rule 
(CSAPR), promulgating federal implementation plans (FIPs) addressing 
good neighbor obligations for ozone and fine particulate matter); 81 
FR 74504 (CSAPR Update, promulgating FIPs addressing good neighbor 
obligations for ozone).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    When the EPA identified downwind air quality problems as part of 
the 2016 Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR) Update, we used air 
quality modeling projections for the (then) future analytic year of 
2017,\7\ consistent with the North Carolina decision.\8\ The EPA also 
used a 2017 compliance deadline to ensure that the emissions reductions 
achieved through implementing the CSAPR Update would be made prior to 
the July 20, 2018 moderate attainment deadline,\9\ again in conformance 
with North Carolina.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 81 FR 74504, 74516. See 84 FR 6736 for additional details on 
the CSAPR Update.
    \8\ 531 F.3d 914.
    \9\ 81 FR 74504, 74516.
    \10\ 531 F.3d 911-12 (holding that the EPA must coordinate 
interstate transport compliance deadlines with downwind attainment 
deadlines).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Because Hawaii was not part of the EPA's air quality modeling 
analysis for the CSAPR Update, the EPA used a weight of evidence 
analysis to assess Hawaii's interstate transport obligations with 
respect to the 2008 ozone NAAQS. This approach included reviewing 
Hawaii's recent emissions history that showed emissions have decreased 
over time and are substantially lower than emissions from California, 
Arizona, Colorado, and Texas, as shown in Table 1 of our proposed 
rule,\11\ and reviewing Hawaii's transport patterns using trajectory 
analysis. We then compared the emissions data and the distance between 
Hawaii and receptors in the continental U.S. with the much higher 
emissions levels and much smaller distances between upwind and downwind 
states with known, modeled linkages in the continental U.S. In other 
words, our analysis considered both the absolute level of recent 
emissions from Hawaii and the downward trend in these emissions. Based 
on this analysis, the EPA concludes that emissions from Hawaii will not 
significantly contribute to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance 
of the 2008 ozone NAAQS in any other state. Our approval of Hawaii's 
interstate transport SIP is based on this determination.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 84 FR 6736, 6738.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Final Action

    For the reasons described in our responses to comments, the 
comments received do not alter our proposed determination that 
emissions from Hawaii will not significantly contribute to 
nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the 2008 ozone NAAQS in 
any other state. Therefore, the EPA is approving Hawaii's 2008 ozone 
transport SIP, submitted by Hawaii DOH on August 6, 2015, as meeting 
the applicable requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) as a 
revision to the Hawaii SIP.

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 Act. 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 Act; 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 
15, 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 and shall not postpone the 
effectiveness of such rule or action. This action may

[[Page 40269]]

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, Infrastructure SIP, Interstate transport, Nitrogen oxides, 
Ozone, Volatile organic compounds.

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

    Dated: July 30, 2019.
Deborah Jordan,
Acting Regional Administrator, EPA Region IX.
    Chapter I, title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended 
as follows:

PART 52--[AMENDED]

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

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

Subpart M--Hawaii

0
2. In Sec.  52.620, amend the table in paragraph (e) by adding an entry 
for ``Hawaii State Implementation Plan Revision to Address CAA Section 
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(l) for the 2008 Ozone National Ambient Air Quality 
Standard, excluding Attachment 3'' after the entry for ``Hawaii State 
Implementation Plan Revision, National Ambient Air Quality Standards 
for 2008 Ozone and 2010 Nitrogen Dioxide, Clean Air Act Section 
110(a)(1) & (2), excluding attachment 3, and appendices A, B, and C.''
    The revisions and additions read as follows:


Sec.  52.620  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (e) * * *

                   EPA Approved Hawaii Nonregulatory Provisions and Quasi-Regulatory Measures
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                        Applicable
      Name of SIP provision           geographic or          State       EPA approval date       Explanation
                                    nonattainment area  submittal date
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      State of Hawaii Air Pollution Control Implementation Plans for Nitrogen Dioxide, Ozone, PM, and Lead
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
                                                  * * * * * * *
Hawaii State Implementation Plan   Statewide..........        8/6/2015  [Insert Federal      Approved SIP
 Revision to Address CAA Section                                         Register page        revision excludes
 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(l) for the 2008                                         number where the     Attachment 3
 Ozone National Ambient Air                                              document begins, 8/  (``Summary of
 Quality Standard, excluding                                             14/19.               Public
 Attachment 3.                                                                                Participation
                                                                                              Proceedings'').
 
                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 2019-17125 Filed 8-13-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.